PDA

View Full Version : Peter Parr's Chess Column



antichrist
25-10-2004, 01:56 PM
what happened to Peter's column in today's SMH. Is he okay? My religion is reading his columnn.

antichrist
04-11-2004, 06:03 PM
Peter are you going to report on the Big Controversey (?) in the Olympaid re the PNG team like you did for Mr. Fell's opponent? You can't discriminate!

antichrist
02-03-2005, 11:32 AM
Peter
I have had lost of email trouble recently. Just in case you have not received my message am including below. For your chess column Thanks
regards
Thank you.
Peter Hanna
__________________________________________________ ______________
Sydney Easter Cup 2005

Presented by Cabra-Vale Diggers Chess Club
1 Bartley Street, Cabramatta, 5 mins walk to Cabramatta Station.

Seven Rounds

1 hour each player, loss on flag fall, games will be rated

Register and play 9.00 am Easter Saturday March 26, second day of play Easter Monday March 28

A separate lightning competition will be held on the evening of Monday March 28

Entry Fee: $20 Concession $10 Juniors $10

All entry fees to be refunded in prizes plus free hot meal on second day of competition

$250 (minimum) First Prize guaranteed

Further details: Ernest Dorn Phone (02) 9727-2931 Mble 0419-260-240
__________________________________________________ ________________-

antichrist
14-12-2009, 10:55 AM
AGain in today's SMH Peter's column has not good news for Ilic in NSW Championship. He shows top players scoring 7 and 6s blah blah, and someone 1.5, then drops down to Ilic scoring only .5. why put him in at all? Why rub it in? He only lists 4 players, surely there were more than 4 players? why put the last one in?

Bill Gletsos
15-12-2009, 12:23 AM
AGain in today's SMH Peter's column has not good news for Ilic in NSW Championship. He shows top players scoring 7 and 6s blah blah, and someone 1.5, then drops down to Ilic scoring only .5. why put him in at all? Why rub it in? He only lists 4 players, surely there were more than 4 players? why put the last one in?You are hopeless.
Peter mentions there were 6 players and he list the final scores for all 6 players.

antichrist
15-12-2009, 09:33 AM
You are hopeless.
Peter mentions there were 6 players and he list the final scores for all 6 players.

I admittingly raced through it only picking up on the last bit about my friend Ilic who whinges about Peter only noting his losses in the column and never his victories.

Well what is worse to come out of it is that there were only 6 players - pretty lousy for a place with so many highly rated players as Sydney has. Which brings us back to the argument about the comps format of so many weekend's committment. If I held the Sydney Easter Cup in a inner city venue I would get better than that (with only modest prize money)

Bill Gletsos
15-12-2009, 09:58 AM
I admittingly raced through it only picking up on the last bit about my friend Ilic who whinges about Peter only noting his losses in the column and never his victories.

Well what is worse to come out of it is that there were only 6 players - pretty lousy for a place with so many highly rated players as Sydney has.Brett actually went down the rating list phoning players to see if they were prepared to play.

Which brings us back to the argument about the comps format of so many weekend's committment.The event was not held on weekends but on a weeknight.

If I held the Sydney Easter Cup in a inner city venue I would get better than that (with only modest prize money)The event was held in Burwood which is in Sydneys inner west.
Also you are comparing apples to oranges. The State Championship is a far more serious event with a longer time control than your SEC.

antichrist
15-12-2009, 10:06 AM
Brett actually went down the rating list phoning players to see if they were prepared to play.
The event was not held on weekends but on a weeknight.

Maybe they thought they would be just demolished by Shirty so they stayed away. Becoming monotonous. There is ten times more competiton in the table tennis comps that I sometimes attend, but they are held over one weekend. But I know they tried that once I think.

Adamski
30-01-2010, 10:35 AM
These can be found online here (http://www.chessdiscountsales.com/news/2010.htm).

antichrist
08-03-2010, 03:48 AM
In Peter's column 2 or 3 weeks ago (could not find online didn't know how) he mentioned a "much improved" player, I attempted to correct him to "much-improved" but he would have none of it?????????????

If I beat him on this I will challenge him to chess game.

One day we may even get his royal highness to post here

Adamski
08-03-2010, 06:39 AM
In Peter's column 2 or 3 weeks ago (could not find online didn't know how) he mentioned a "much improved" player, I attempted to correct him to "much-improved" but he would have none of it?????????????

If I beat him on this I will challenge him to chess game.

One day we may even get his royal highness to post herePeter is right and you are wrong. To find his columns online just click on the link and follow your nose (or teeth).

Rincewind
08-03-2010, 07:29 AM
Peter is right and you are wrong. To find his columns online just click on the link and follow your nose (or teeth).

The only "much improved" I could find was regarding the NSWCA website. Peter Parr reports...


"Reitmans launched the new much improved website on Saturday afternoon..."

I agree with Peter Hanna, that should read "much-improved." "Much" is a non -ly adverb modifying "improved" and occurring before the noun (website). AFAIK the rule is to hyphenate. Also a comma or the word "and" after "new" would have not have gone astray, giving

"Reitmans launched the new and much-improved website on Saturday afternoon..."

Adamski
08-03-2010, 11:28 AM
Ok, point taken, though in common usage the hyphen is often missed out. One for the grammarians on this board. Of course, I agree that the new NSWCA web site is indeed much-improved.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 03:58 PM
I agree with Peter Hanna, that should read "much-improved." "Much" is a non -ly adverb modifying "improved" and occurring before the noun (website). AFAIK the rule is to hyphenate. Also a comma or the word "and" after "new" would have not have gone astray, giving

"Reitmans launched the new and much-improved website on Saturday afternoon..."
I agree.


Of course, I agree that the new NSWCA web site is indeed much-improved.
Not sure if the hyphen is needed for a predicate adjective like that, as opposed to the attributive adjective in the column in question.

Rincewind
08-03-2010, 04:12 PM
Not sure if the hyphen is needed for a predicate adjective like that, as opposed to the attributive adjective in the column in question.

Yep I don't think it is either.

I'm not sure of the distinction between a predicative and attributive adjective but I assume it has something to do with its position relative to the noun. My understanding of the rule is hyphenate before the noun and not afterward.

antichrist
08-03-2010, 04:58 PM
In Peter's column 2 or 3 weeks ago (could not find online didn't know how) he mentioned a "much improved" player, I attempted to correct him to "much-improved" but he would have none of it?????????????

If I beat him on this I will challenge him to chess game.

One day we may even get his royal highness to post here

Thanks a million RW - with English and justice I am not qualified but do have a sense of both and know when something is wrong even if I don't know why or how to correct.

Now Mr Parr for that game of chess - due to my journeyman rating I go white!

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2010, 02:17 AM
I'm not sure of the distinction between a predicative and attributive adjective but I assume it has something to do with its position relative to the noun. My understanding of the rule is hyphenate before the noun and not afterward.
That rule of thumb is right, and a corollary of the different functions of the adjectives:

The book was half read—"book" is the subject, "half read" is the predicate, which describes the subject, and there is a copula, "was".

The half-read book was thrown away—now, "half-read" is an attribute of the noun, "book", and forms a noun phrase, which is the subject; "was thrown away" is the predicate, explaining what happened to the subject, the half-read book.

Adamski
10-03-2010, 11:04 AM
That rule of thumb is right, and a corollary of the different functions of the adjectives:

The book was half read—"book" is the subject, "half read" is the predicate, which describes the subject, and there is a copula, "was".

The half-read book was thrown away—now, "half-read" is an attribute of the noun, "book", and forms a noun phrase, which is the subject; "was thrown away" is the predicate, explaining what happened to the subject, the half-read book.Thanks, Jono. Maybe one day I will be able to use this information. :)

Rincewind
10-03-2010, 11:23 AM
Thanks, Jono. Maybe one day I will be able to use this information. :)

Which is why rules of thumb can be useful. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2010, 02:03 PM
Americans tend to put all punctuation marks inside quotes; it saves their having to use their brains, but it's grating for those of us who like proper English. The correct rule is: put the punctuation inside the quote if it actually pertains to the quoted part. I.e. if we cite something right to the end of a sentence, we would put the punctuation inside the quotes. But if the the part we quote does NOT end where the original sentence did, then the punctuation would be outside the quotes. The correct rule provides more information about the original than the American rigid brainless system, which removes such distinctions. (BTW, my American wife agreed with me even before we were married. She was long irked by the practice of putting punctuation inside the quote when the original lacked any punctuation.)

A simlar rule applies to clauses.

For example: consider if the original sentence is:

"This is impossible; let's go home."

It could be quoted as:

"This is impossible," she said, "let's go home."
Here, the comma is inside because the original quote had a semicolon inside. The period is also inside, because it corresponds to the period in the original.

However, consider what would happen if the original was:

"Crawl back into your hole."
Then it would be quoted as:

"Crawl back", he said, "into your hole."
Note that the comma is outside, because the part quoted had no punctuation in the original after the word "back". But there is a period after "hole" because that matches the original.

Extending this, it could be:

"Crawl back", he said, "into your hole," and glowered menacingly.
Here, there is a comma after "hole" and before the quote, because it corresponds to the end of the sentence in the original.

pax
10-03-2010, 03:33 PM
However, consider what would happen if the original was:

"Crawl back into your hole."
Then it would be quoted as:

"Crawl back", he said, "into your hole."

Sounds like a good way to butcher a quote.

arosar
10-03-2010, 08:20 PM
Sounds like a good way to butcher a quote.

That's fkn postdernism!

Anyways, talk about grammar. Youse blokes should try Japanese. It's like bloody Yoda-speak. The structure is S + O + V.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2010, 02:21 AM
Sounds like a good way to butcher a quote.
It was only an illustration. In practice it would be a longer quote, but the principle remains the same.

pax
11-03-2010, 04:05 PM
It was only an illustration. In practice it would be a longer quote, but the principle remains the same.

Still, I can't think of an example where it would make any sense to split a quote other than at a punctiation mark.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2010, 04:30 PM
Still, I can't think of an example where it would make any sense to split a quote other than at a punctiation mark.
I'm with you, but it happens often in literature. Probably more common is quoting part of the sentence, which may not end with a punctuation mark.

Another place where punctuation should be outside quotation marks is when they are "scare quotes", or "definitional quotes".

antichrist
10-11-2010, 06:10 AM
That rule of thumb is right, .

Should that have been "rule-of-thumb"?


And in this week's column Peter does it again - comes out with ...Fide rated, whereas should have been Fide-rated - check it out

Denis_Jessop
12-11-2010, 01:08 PM
Should that have been "rule-of-thumb"?


And in this week's column Peter does it again - comes out with ...Fide rated, whereas should have been Fide-rated - check it out

i'm not sure. Perhaps it should have been "FIDE rated". :)

DJ

arosar
12-11-2010, 03:15 PM
"FIDE-rated" is equally right, I think. It's a compound word.

AR

antichrist
12-11-2010, 03:18 PM
This is where it is:

Triple tie in Melbourne Cup

Peter Parr (8/11/10)

The 61 player Melbourne Cup Yulgilbar-Think Big Australian Chess Grand Prix FIDE rated weekender resulted in a triple tie for first place between IM Mirko Rujevic (2225), FM Erik Teichmann (2329) and Justin Tan (1978 ,aged 13) each scoring 7 out of 9. Four players IM James Morris (2203), IM Stephen Solomon (2335), FM Bobby Cheng (2227) and Svetozar Stojic (1882) were half a point behind on 6.5 . A 6 - round rapid tournament will be held at the Sydney Chess Centre,Burwood on Wednesdays 10th and 17th November

Rincewind
12-11-2010, 03:29 PM
The 61 player Melbourne Cup Yulgilbar-Think Big Australian Chess Grand Prix FIDE rated weekender resulted in a triple tie for first place between IM Mirko Rujevic (2225), FM Erik Teichmann (2329) and Justin Tan (1978 ,aged 13) each scoring 7 out of 9. Four players IM James Morris (2203), IM Stephen Solomon (2335), FM Bobby Cheng (2227) and Svetozar Stojic (1882) were half a point behind on 6.5 . A 6 - round rapid tournament will be held at the Sydney Chess Centre,Burwood on Wednesdays 10th and 17th November

I would definitely hyphenate here. It fits the rule of thumb mentioned elsewhere on the board and also prevents ambiguity.

"FIDE rated weekender" could mean a rated weekender organised by FIDE.

"FIDE-rated weekender" is clearly a weekender that is just rated by FIDE.

Denis_Jessop
12-11-2010, 10:42 PM
I would definitely hyphenate here. It fits the rule of thumb mentioned elsewhere on the board and also prevents ambiguity.

"FIDE rated weekender" could mean a rated weekender organised by FIDE.

"FIDE-rated weekender" is clearly a weekender that is just rated by FIDE.

I think this is a subject that calls for top(-)flight quibbling. So in your first example, if the event was organised by FIDE (or Fide if one reads the Guardian) it would have been rated by FIDE too. Likewise, in the second example, it doesn't necessarily follow that the event was not organised by FIDE. :hmm: ;) :confused:

DJ

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 01:03 AM
I think this is a subject that calls for top(-)flight quibbling. So in your first example, if the event was organised by FIDE (or Fide if one reads the Guardian) it would have been rated by FIDE too. Likewise, in the second example, it doesn't necessarily follow that the event was not organised by FIDE. :hmm: ;) :confused:

Regarding both points I agree. However I would not that regarding the first quibble point the implication is more than was intended. The event was only rated by FIDE and not organised by them so using language which could not be taken to imply both rating and organisation is desirable.

Regarding the second point many things are not ruled out including Ilyumzhinov appearing in person - flown in via UFO. However, again the intention of the sentence was to say FIDE would rate the event. The best way to say this, and no more, is with the hyphenated version.

antichrist
13-11-2010, 09:09 AM
I think this is a subject that calls for top(-)flight quibbling. So in your first example, if the event was organised by FIDE (or Fide if one reads the Guardian) it would have been rated by FIDE too. Likewise, in the second example, it doesn't necessarily follow that the event was not organised by FIDE. :hmm: ;) :confused:

DJ

It is easy to see that you were a bloody lawyer being paid by the portfolio of 53 words - and haven't I had to pay them and architects, engineers fortunes over the years. They have had more holidays than myself on my money.

antichrist
04-04-2011, 10:25 AM
In today's column Peter reports how FIDE gen secretary Ignatius Leong in sydney recently stated FIDE will restructure its rating fees with no extra charge for thousands of games. One player one FIDE rating, for every chess player world wide would eliminate the need for individual countries to have their rating lists.

AC
will this put Bill and Glicko out to pasture and all the unnecessary animosity it has called?

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2011, 04:55 PM
No, the last sentence is just speculation on Peter's part. The real idea was for FIDE to expand by rating rapid and blitz. See previous discussion at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12006

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2011, 06:04 PM
Furthermore the Qualification Commission rejected the "one player one rating" proposal and suggested different lists for rapid and blitz.

peter_parr
05-04-2011, 11:26 AM
“FIDE General Secretary Ignatius Leong (Singapore) in a recent visit to Sydney advised that FIDE will soon restructure its rating fees with no extra charges for thousands of games. ‘One player, one FIDE rating’ for every chess player worldwide would eliminate the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists.”

See SMH (http://www.chessdiscountsales.com/news/2011.htm)



No, the last sentence is just speculation on Peter's part. The real idea was for FIDE to expand by rating rapid and blitz. See previous discussion at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12006


Actually the final sentence ("‘One player,one FIDE rating’ for every chess player worldwide would eliminate the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists. ") was just speculation on Peter's part.

See post 4 at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=12006 where this was done to death before.

My last sentence was not speculation on my part as stated incorrectly by KB.

I was quoting from what the FIDE General Secretary Ignatius Leong (Singapore) said at Norths (Sydney) in his speech on “One player, One FIDE rating”
(I was there – KB was not)

The whole point Leong was making was simply one player one rating eliminating the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists.

This is what Leong said and this is what I correctly published in the SMH.
Leong explained for some time one player – one rating. My report was 100% accurate in the few lines available.

I’m not writing the encyclopedia of Chit-Chat-Chess-Chat.

Btw – It was unfortunate that no ACF official attended the Deloitte chess exhibition last Wednesday in George St, Sydney CBD. I sincerely hope KB (ACF vice-president) that the ACF on its letterhead write to Deloitte thanking Deloitte Australia for their $10,000 sponsorship.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2011, 11:36 AM
I was quoting from what the FIDE General Secretary Ignatius Leong (Singapore) said at Norths (Sydney) in his speech on “One player, One FIDE rating”
(I was there – KB was not)

But accounts from others who were there clearly differ from yours and in any case following the rejection of the idea by the Qualification Commission what you are saying is out of date.

Further if you were quoting you would have given exact quotes. I see none.

peter_parr
05-04-2011, 01:38 PM
But accounts from others who were there clearly differ from yours and in any case following the rejection of the idea by the Qualification Commission what you are saying is out of date.

Further if you were quoting you would have given exact quotes. I see none.

More nonsense from Bonham.
My column was 100% accurate as in my post above.
Once again I correctly reported what the FIDE general secretary Ignatius Leong said in Sydney for a full 15 minutes.
“one player, one rating”
It is that simple.

Bill Gletsos
05-04-2011, 03:54 PM
FIDE General Secretary Ignatius Leong (Singapore) in a recent visit to Sydney advised that FIDE will soon restructure its rating fees with no extra charges for thousands of games. ‘One player,one FIDE rating’ for every chess player worldwide would eliminate the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists.Ignatius never said that it would eliminate the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists.
He made it quite clear that the concept of "one player, one FIDE rating" was the idea to rate Normal, Rapid and Blitz but to provide only one FIDE rating and not separate Normal, Rapid and Blitz ratings.

antichrist
05-04-2011, 04:45 PM
well someone hear needs a hereing aid?

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2011, 07:25 PM
More nonsense from Bonham.

You provide no evidence that it is nonsense.


My column was 100% accurate as in my post above.
Once again I correctly reported what the FIDE general secretary Ignatius Leong said in Sydney for a full 15 minutes.
“one player, one rating”
It is that simple.

I don't believe you.

antichrist
05-04-2011, 07:41 PM
Ignatius never said that it would eliminate the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists.
He made it quite clear that the concept of "one player, one FIDE rating" was the idea to rate Normal, Rapid and Blitz but to provide only one FIDE rating and not separate Normal, Rapid and Blitz ratings.

Bill, did you also attend? And you could hear clearly?

Denis_Jessop
05-04-2011, 08:24 PM
Bill, did you also attend? And you could hear clearly?

The idea of having only one rating list is supported by the Qualification Commission's recent decision not to do that.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
05-04-2011, 09:34 PM
Bill, did you also attend? And you could hear clearly?Yes, I was there.
In fact I discussed the matter further with Ignatius when I drove him back to his hotel and he explained that FIDE would first have to determine what K factors to use to weight Rapid & Blitz games.

machomortensen
06-04-2011, 03:19 AM
HEHE - are any of you that old that you remember the final electoral bribes between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter??

Just a thought...

antichrist
06-04-2011, 03:51 AM
Yes, I was there.
In fact I discussed the matter further with Ignatius when I drove him back to his hotel and he explained that FIDE would first have to determine what K factors to use to weight Rapid & Blitz games.


I hope he does not stay at too posh a hotel at FIDE's expense like those Olympic officials do at their committee's expense.

Does Glicko also involve a K factor as well as 11 different herbs and spices?

antichrist
06-04-2011, 03:56 AM
[06-04-2011 01:43 AM] JaK: To have the main source's point of view in the Bonham & Gletsos Vs Parr re ACF / FIDE ratings I e-mailed Mr Leon himself! hehe and I 've got an answer!!!! Counting seconds till I receive PMs now! but i go to bed now I have to go fishing tomorow!


JAK, you just want to break my monopoly of emailing FIDE - Peter Parr will charge you double now not 30% discount as currently in closing down sale.

peter_parr
06-04-2011, 11:11 AM
Ignatius never said that it would eliminate the need for individual countries to produce their own rating lists.
He made it quite clear that the concept of "one player, one FIDE rating" was the idea to rate Normal, Rapid and Blitz but to provide only one FIDE rating and not separate Normal, Rapid and Blitz ratings.


Furthermore the Qualification Commission rejected the "one player one rating" proposal and suggested different lists for rapid and blitz.

Kevin says separate FIDE rating lists for normal, rapid and blitz but Bill says not separate FIDE rating lists for normal, rapid and blitz.

Let us leave the ACF heavyweights to settle their differences after sending a letter of thanks on ACF letterhead to Deloitte Australia for their $10,000 chess sponsorship.

Kevin says he does not believe me “one player, one rating” interpreting this to mean 1 player, 6 ratings – FIDE Blitz, FIDE Rapid, FIDE normal, ACF Blitz, ACF Rapid, ACF normal – Unbelievable!!

When FIDE restructures its rating fees with no extra charges for thousands of games (Leong) then the ACF will be able to process every game played in Australia into the FIDE rating list.

So when every single game played in Australia is processed in the FIDE rating system say 100,000 games why would a new younger ACF executive process exactly the same 100,000 games in an ACF rating list?

This would eliminate the need for individual countries to process exactly the same games in a national rating list as explained by Leong.

Clearly the FIDE General Secretary (Leong) is a very wise man and highly respected by chess officials in over 150 countries.

ER
06-04-2011, 12:34 PM
In order to have this issue examined from all possible angles,
and at the same time contribute to maintaining the credibility and reporting immediacy of this Forum, I e-mailed the FIDE general secretary Mr Ignatius Leong sending him the following message

Dear Mr Leong

There is some public discussion in ChessChat Forum (Australia) in regards to
a statement of yours made during your visit to Australia.

One of the sides is claiming that ...

"FIDE General Secretary Ignatius Leong (Singapore) in a recent visit to
Sydney advised that FIDE will soon restructure its rating fees with no extra
charges for thousands of games. 'One player, one FIDE rating' for every
chess player worldwide would eliminate the need for individual countries to
produce their own rating lists."

Another side is claiming that ...

"Ignatius never said that it would eliminate the need for individual
countries to produce their own rating lists.
He made it quite clear that the concept of "one player, one FIDE rating" was
the idea to rate Normal, Rapid and Blitz but to provide only one FIDE rating
and not separate Normal, Rapid and Blitz ratings."

Could you please clarify which statement is correct, or closer to what you
stated during your visit to Sydney?

Cheers and good luck!

Well, I go to lunch now, when I come back you will have the General Secretary's response.

Hobbes
06-04-2011, 01:19 PM
Well, I go to lunch now, when I come back you will have the General Secretary's response.

Day Tripper

ER
06-04-2011, 01:49 PM
Day Tripper

hehe yes on a magical mystery tour! :P

Garvinator
06-04-2011, 02:18 PM
the response was received on Tuesday 05/04/2011 10:34 PMand the response is where?

ER
06-04-2011, 02:42 PM
you wait, I am building suspense now! :)

ER
06-04-2011, 02:49 PM
BTW I hope Mr Leong doesn't have a thorough look in the FIDE related articles of the Forum. You guys are just so so so ... disappointing when it comes to expressing your opinion about our paramount governing body. :P

Desmond
06-04-2011, 02:52 PM
BTW I hope Mr Leong doesn't have a thorough look in the FIDE related articles of the Forum. You guys are just so so so ... disappointing when it comes to expressing your opinion about our paramount governing body. :P
quit stalling and post the reply :lol:

ER
06-04-2011, 02:56 PM
quit stalling and post the reply :lol:

you wait till all Queenslanders are on board! :P How's Jacinta? :)

Desmond
06-04-2011, 03:26 PM
you wait till all Queenslanders are on board! :P How's Jacinta? :)fantastic mate, she's learning what the bones are called at her kindy gym. She already knows more than I because apparently the hip bone is not called the hip bone, which was news to me. :hmm: :lol:

Anyway, quit stalling. :P

ER
06-04-2011, 03:45 PM
fantastic mate, she's learning what the bones are called at her kindy gym. She already knows more than I because apparently the hip bone is not called the hip bone, which was news to me. :hmm: :lol:

Anyway, quit stalling. :P

funny with the hip bone, I had a similar discussion with my godson and he referred to it as coxal and some other name I can't recall. Yes, they learn a lot and fast too!

OK here comes Mr Leong's response! :)

ER
06-04-2011, 03:51 PM
the response was received on Tuesday 05/04/2011 10:34 PM

From: Ignatius Leong (...) Date: 05/04/2011 10:34 PM | Email
To: elliott.renzies (...)


I have no memory of this.

Garvinator
06-04-2011, 03:57 PM
I have no memory of this.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ER
06-04-2011, 04:20 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well that's what he said!
I am just sticking to the bare facts! :P

Desmond
06-04-2011, 04:28 PM
well that's what he said!
I am just sticking to the bare facts! :P
Oh good, for a minute I was worried that the response would end the argument.

ER
06-04-2011, 04:38 PM
Oh good, for a minute I was worried that the response would end the argument.

Yeah right! If you only knew to whom question and response was cc ed to (I am not revealing that so you guys no use to try to extricate more details) you will realise that Australian Chess affairs are taken very seriously.
That, IMHO means that instead of just bickering here and there whinging about FIDE, ACF, Tornelo etc we better start lobbying for improving our position worldwide!
Having said that, if something is happening behind the scenes and I don't know about it, just carry on you are doing fine! :)

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2011, 04:57 PM
From: Ignatius Leong (...) Date: 05/04/2011 10:34 PM | Email
To: elliott.renzies (...)


I have no memory of this.

And nor would anyone expect him to given that the meeting was almost a year ago.

ER
06-04-2011, 05:10 PM
And nor would anyone expect him to given that the meeting was almost a year ago.

Then how come Peter and Bill (claim that they) do smarty? :P

lol I haven't icluded you because you are simply unbackable in the memory faculties! I mean five years after to remember THAT detail (Carlton Tennis Courts) in the pic!!! I mean c'mon!!!

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2011, 08:29 PM
Then how come Peter and Bill (claim that they) do smarty? :P

Bill at least has the advantage that he would remember he has previously debated the issue and could check his previous comments if he needed to. I suspect given that he is a Ratings Officer the issue is of such interest to him he wouldn't need to.


lol I haven't icluded you because you are simply unbackable in the memory faculties! I mean five years after to remember THAT detail (Carlton Tennis Courts) in the pic!!! I mean c'mon!!!

Yeah but I am doing well if I can remember where in the house I put my hat from day to day. I'm not consistently brilliant.

antichrist
10-01-2012, 10:14 AM
The top seed GM Zong-Yuan Zhao won the following game in the final round :- Zhao v Yi Liu 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5 4 d5 d6 5 Nc3 exd5 6 cxd5 a6 7 a4 g6 8 h3 Qe7 9 Bf4 Bg7 10 e3 0-0 11 Bd3 Nh5 12 Bh2 f5 13 0-0 Nd7 14 Nd2 Ne5 15 Be2 Nf6 16 f4 Nd3! 17 Kh1 Nb4 18 Nc4 Bd7 19 Bf3 Rae8 20 Re1 b5 21 Nb6 c4 22 e4 Nd3 23 Qd2 fxe4 24 Nxe4 Nxe1 25 Rxe1 Bf5 26 Nxf6+ Qxf6 27 Rxe8 Rxe8 28 axb5 Qd4 0-1

I found this a bit ambiguous or was it me - I don't want to make one of those B for blunder moments again and W for Win

Garrett
10-01-2012, 12:31 PM
ZYZ was black.

antichrist
10-01-2012, 03:36 PM
ZYZ was black.

that's what I thought but the score sheet begins: Zhao v Yi Liu, and as the first one mentioned should be who played white

antichrist
22-04-2013, 10:27 AM
In today's column Peter gives a good account of Zhao's Bangkok performance but no game, instead a 1923 game between Alekhine and Rubinstein - bit of an insult isn't it, didn't Zhao play a game worth printing?

Also not stated if best win by an Australian nor if achieved best rating by an Australian if the case

machomortensen
23-04-2013, 06:34 PM
Probably you will have wait another week...

antichrist
24-10-2013, 04:58 AM
Probably you will have wait another week...

or a bit longer

machomortensen
27-10-2013, 03:49 AM
Has SMH completely dropped the chesscolumn??

antichrist
27-10-2013, 09:46 AM
Has SMH completely dropped the chesscolumn??

I have been meaning to ring them for ages. They have filled up the page with bridge every day for years, and sudoku and now binary sodoku fill the whole page. The chess column I thought should have been on Tuesday to take in weekend results so not one week behind times. Chess is too elite intellectual wise to deserve space.

Adamski
27-10-2013, 12:09 PM
It would be a huge pity if the SMH chess column cesses.

antichrist
27-10-2013, 12:30 PM
I would have preferred if he concentrated more on Australian chess than often showing overseas results at expense of locals. Also what disappointed me was that some games printed were not illustrationary, so was disappointed at end to find that learnt nothing, just weak-knead games. Would not encourage new students of chess or popoularise his column.

jammo
27-10-2013, 08:51 PM
Good grief! "Cesses", "illustrationary" and "weak-knead." I'm glad that I'm not the only one who can't' type/spell properly.

antichrist
27-10-2013, 09:05 PM
Good grief! "Cesses", "illustrationary" and "weak-knead." I'm glad that I'm not the only one who can't' type/spell properly.

and fighting against those who are forever lost in the minutiae - you seemed you have joined the enemy

I have had that trap set for a weak

antichrist
28-10-2013, 04:00 PM
I just lodged a complaint with Sydney Morning Herald concerning lack of chess column, the guy did not sound too confident about another column appearing. Only that he would pass me complaint on upstairs

antichrist
28-10-2013, 04:28 PM
And if they don't come good I will cancel my subscription after 40 plus years and let them know of it. That will teach them, coz they put all extra sudoku rubbish instead of chess - and it will get me off my backside more

Ian_Rogers
28-10-2013, 04:48 PM
It seems that there have been too few complaints about the disappearance of the chess column for the SMH to feel that they needed to find a new chess columnist, despite being made aware that various current leading players were keen to take on the job. As a corollary, this could be the first world title match since before 1972 where the SMH has not published most or all of the World Championship games.

antichrist
29-10-2013, 07:34 AM
If the column had been more Australian then readers would have connected more intimately with it and responded stronger, but month after month (or whenever) listing the world rankings is meaningless for most chess players. The best game played in Australia each fortnight at least should have been included, and maybe hints on how to play, or at least include games that covered all aspects of play, e.g., brilliant smother mates etc.. So that after a period of time a readers accumulated knowledge of play becomes hefty and their game improves correspondingly, and they appreciate accordingly.

Ian Rout
29-10-2013, 09:41 AM
I'm not convinced that this is a great tragedy. In 1969, or even 1990, a handful of paper and electronic media outlets monopolised the news - if they didn't mention it then it hadn't happened. These days you can get news from multiple sources, including dedicated chess sites with far more detail in the case of chess news.

I can't remember the last time I bought a paper SMH. I log into the on-line site from time to time (though I certainly wouldn't pay for it now they've made it a pay site) but that didn't carry the chess column.

It could I suppose be argued that having a column is a bit of extra publicity and credibility for chess generally and it all helps, but I think it's very much at the edges. It doesn't even follow that the World Championship won't be mentioned. They may still paste it from the news service, as with other international news much of which seems to be thrown in on the basis that they paid for it so they might as well use it.

Anyway, grizzling about the column is obviously not working so if anybody really wants to do something they will need to show the SMH that they want chess players on side. I propose that somebody who cares about it organises a boycott in which chess players are asked not to buy or log in to SMH for, say, three days. They can then see from readership and revenue figures that they need chess (if it's true).

Rincewind
29-10-2013, 10:58 AM
I think Ian Rout has hit the nail on the head. Paper media is fast becoming an anachronism and who would need a chess column in an online world with various specialised websites around. Perhaps there is a niche for Australian focused news but in my opinion a suitably motivated columnist would be better advised to pour their efforts into a good quality blog rather than writing a column in a printed outlet that less and less people are reading.

Desmond
29-10-2013, 11:17 AM
I can't remember the last time I bought a paper SMH. I log into the on-line site from time to time (though I certainly wouldn't pay for it now they've made it a pay site) but that didn't carry the chess column.
You can read 30 articles per month for free. Also you get 30 articles per newspaper site, so you can read 30 on SMH, then once that runs out go to Brisbane Times and read another 30, ditto for The age, WA, Canberra versions - they are all the same articles.

Ian Rout
29-10-2013, 05:37 PM
You can read 30 articles per month for free. Also you get 30 articles per newspaper site, so you can read 30 on SMH, then once that runs out go to Brisbane Times and read another 30, ditto for The age, WA, Canberra versions - they are all the same articles.
This is true, and as discussed elsewhere there are ways around the paywall. My point was that I (and I expect many others) don't see SMH as a sole or predominant source of chess or other information.

I think the concern about the chess column relates not to its authentic value but to the excitement of seeing chess featured in a mainstream media organ, which can perhaps be tempered by noting that the same prominence is afforded sudoku and astrology but on a daily basis.

triplecheck
30-10-2013, 10:30 AM
Well, yeah, active players can get their news from an online column, but you no longer reach ex-players and fringe players who casually read the column when they see it but are not going to look for a chess-specific online source.

machomortensen
30-10-2013, 03:36 PM
Exactly my words "triplecheck".

The chessworld loses a (still) important platform. In my opinion Peter Parr should have used diagrams in his column - he explained to me why he didn't... - which might have interested non/not yet clubplayers.

Rincewind
30-10-2013, 04:20 PM
Well, yeah, active players can get their news from an online column, but you no longer reach ex-players and fringe players who casually read the column when they see it but are not going to look for a chess-specific online source.

I think that argument was valid in the past and perhaps there is still some residual benefit today but the readership of newspapers like the smh (printed format) is shrinking all the time and so it is less of an issue now that it has been and one wonders for how long papers like the SMH, The Age and The Australian continue to produce the printed format.

Another point is that this specific benefit is not entirely linked to Australian content. So might decide to do what the Australian does and include a syndicated column (like Raymond Keene's column from the UK) which contains a snippet of international news and then some famous game.

Trent Parker
31-10-2013, 08:42 AM
I personally think that instead of trying to get the article back into SMH it might expose chess better if we could get a regular column (even if fortnightly) in the Mx Papers which are free and which are readily available for the Sydney commuters. I think there would be more readers in sydney of Mx than there would SMH. I know it would not target those outside of Sydney but I think this would reach more past or potential chess players

meh... my 2 cents worth....