Lobowolf

Uh...riiiiiiiiiiight. And how are are the gay marriage and global warming bills coming along in Oklahoma?

Wow, whom do you have ready to take the side that it was adequate and appropriate?

+1 (on both the low heart lead, and on not liking anything).

Sounds like one of them "Hardy or Lawrence?" things.

First hand off a 6-deck shoe: 11 for you, dealer has a 7 showing, but the down card was flashed, and it's a picture. You stop for a second as you're reaching for the auto-double, and then you...

You are actually quite wrong there Ron. Under the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations hearsay is explicitly included in admissable evidence. I guess that should not surprise me, Dave. ACBL aside, "Hearsay is not evidence" is a blanket rule is incorrect, in a legal sense. A statement or object that makes a material fact either more or less likely to be true, even if only slightly, is not only evidence, it's relevant evidence. While the general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, that's not the same as its not being evidence. Moreover, there are well over a dozen exceptions under which relevant hearsay IS admissible. "Hearsay is not evidence" is absolutely not the law in the USA, and I strongly suspect it's the same in England, Canada, Australia, or (insert your favorite English-speaking country here).

J.C. Wagner, one of the great close-up magicians died last night. Also wrote a couple of great books for magicians: The Commercial Magic of J.C. Wagner, and Seven Secrets. Nice guy, creative thinker, great personality, and a real craftsman.

heh. I have no idea what the Ruy Lopez is and I don't remember what I taught you. I assume it was d4 then knights and bishops and stuff. I of course could look it up, but I'm lazy. Editing because I dont know notation ldo Ruy Lopez: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Ruy Lopez (late 16th century) also advised setting up the table so that the light was in your opponent's eyes. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice! Dude was a priest, too. I don't think there's a name for d4...d5 Nc3...Nc6. In the d4 openings, white usually plays either c4 to help fight for the center (challenging the opponent's d-pawn), or c3, to support his own d-pawn. So it would be very unusual to voluntarily block the c-pawn with 2. Nc3 I edited because I don't know notation lol. Actually I just played black so much when I played a lot of blitz back in the day that I thought the King was always on the left. Does e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 have a name? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 is the Petroff, or the Russian Defense.

Speaking of players from Texas and chess stories... One of the strongest tournaments ever held in the USA was in San Antonio in 1972. Along with the grandmasters and international masters who were invited, they invited Ken Smith, a local senior master/FIDE Master who was a very good players by American standards, but not the world class player that most of his opponents were. The Smith-Morra Gambit in the Sicilian (e4...c5; d4...cxd4; c3) was 1/2-named for Smith, and he played it all the time against c5, very enthusiastically. He was pretty much getting his head handed to him just about every round (no fault of his own; he was just badly overmatched), and playing e4 ever game, and responding to the Sicilian with the Smith-Morra. In one of the rounds, his opponent played, I believe, the French Defense (maybe the Caro Kann). I can't remember who annotated the game, but in the tournament book, it looks like this (translated to algebraic notation): 1. e4....e6? Better is 1...c5, which wins a pawn (Smith invariably plays the Morra Gambit, in this tournament with disastrous results). Smith did go on to draw Paul Keres, one of the very best to never win the world championship (and a few lesser players), and also got a win in the tournament, I believe against IM Tony Saidy.

heh. I have no idea what the Ruy Lopez is and I don't remember what I taught you. I assume it was d4 then knights and bishops and stuff. I of course could look it up, but I'm lazy. Editing because I dont know notation ldo Ruy Lopez: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Ruy Lopez (late 16th century) also advised setting up the table so that the light was in your opponent's eyes. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice! Dude was a priest, too. I don't think there's a name for d4...d5 Nc3...Nc6. In the d4 openings, white usually plays either c4 to help fight for the center (challenging the opponent's d-pawn), or c3, to support his own d-pawn. So it would be very unusual to voluntarily block the c-pawn with 2. Nc3

Larsen was quite the character, too. If Fischer hadn't been in that candidates' cycle, Larsen would have been about an equal favorite with Petrosian to challenge Spassky. Outside of Fischer, he was the best of the non-Soviets for quite a while. Also a very original thinker. In a book on the openings, he noted that the open Sicilian (3. d4 by white) violated the general principle that pawns are more valuable the closer they are to the center files (by voluntarily exchanging his d-pawn for white's c-pawn). He noted that occasionally white gets some overwhelming kingside attacks, but pointed out that invariably, improvements in the defense are found afterward - he thereupon concluded that 3. d4 (by far white's most common continuation) is a "cheap trap."

if i played like morphy did i probably wouldn't mind playing the scotch gambit... didn't fischer pretty much end the scotch? i might be thinking of something else I suspect you're thinking of Fischer's article, "A Bust to The King's Gambit," which he wrote after losing his first game against Boris Spassky (at the Mar de Plata tournament in 1960, long before their world championship match). Interestingly, it was the first time Fischer played against the king's gambit. Apparently, the article was convicing; it was also the last time he played against it. Of course, the vast majority of the time, he was responding to 1. e4 with 1...c5. i think i remember that... wow, i'm really old... a lot of stuff from back in the day is coming back to me... i remember one book where the commentator (larsen? don't you love his first name?) said that in a game between fischer and tal, tal kept a condescending look on his face the entire game - but at the time he was the better player Tal was one of the few GMs with a plus score against Fischer : 6.5-4.5 (+4 -2 =5), though all four of his wins were at the Bled-Zagreb candidates' tournament, a quadruple round-robin where he swept Fischer en route to a first place 20-8 finish. The 4-0 sweep of Fischer was an amazing result; Fischer was already U.S. Champion and a world-class grandmaster (in this event, he split with Keres, former world champion Smyslov, and Gligoric, and won his matches with Olafsson and Benko). Having said that, though, Fischer was still a 16 year old relatively new to international competition, and Tal was at the height of his powers - the next year (1960) he would win his match with Botvinnik and become the youngest world champion ever, a record that stood until Kasparov came around some 25 years later.

The Other Guys...second half slows down a bit but is still funny. The first half is hilarious.

pdga

if i played like morphy did i probably wouldn't mind playing the scotch gambit... didn't fischer pretty much end the scotch? i might be thinking of something else I suspect you're thinking of Fischer's article, "A Bust to The King's Gambit," which he wrote after losing his first game against Boris Spassky (at the Mar de Plata tournament in 1960, long before their world championship match). Interestingly, it was the first time Fischer played against the king's gambit. Apparently, the article was convicing; it was also the last time he played against it. Of course, the vast majority of the time, he was responding to 1. e4 with 1...c5.

The Najdorf should really be its own category.

Sure. Perhaps a good example is laws restricting the smoking of cigarettes in bars and restaurants. This could be viewed as restricting the rights of a minority (smokers). Certainly in many cases laws have been passed which restrict the rights of some groups. The salient issues include: (1) Does the law serve substantial purpose to improve the welfare of the majority? A lot of time was spent arguing this point in the same-sex marriage case. The conclusion reached by the judge was that allowing same-sex couples to marry would in no way damage the welfare of opposite-sex couples. Barring people from smoking in public places does improve the welfare of non smokers (mostly in health-related ways). (2) Is the minority group "deserving" of protection? Certain types of minorities are protected much more heavily than others. In most cases minorities by choice (for example, people who choose to smoke) are not protected nearly as heavily as minorities by genetics (for example, people with a certain color skin). There has been ongoing debate about whether or to what degree sexual orientation is a choice. Modern science has come down pretty strongly in favor of sexual orientation being genetic. This was also discussed in the trial. In contrast, cigarette-smoking is certainly a choice people make. With respect to equal protection claims, there is a "triple-tiered" framework in place, which is tied into not just whether a classification exists by choice or not, but also, for instance, the historical backdrop of discrimination against a particular class. For example, it's "easier" to discriminate against someone on the basis of sex than on the basis of race, although clearly both classifications are genetic. The key components to the analysis are how important the governmental interest being advanced by the law is, and how closely related the law is to advancing that interests. Under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the government interest purported to be advanced must be "compelling," and the law itself must be "necessary" to advancing that interest. In other words, if the government's interest is less than compelling, the law is unconstitutional if strict scrutiny applies. Moreover, even if the government's interests IS compelling, the law is still unconstitutional if it goes further than it would need to go (e.g. it's unnecessarily discriminatory) to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is applied when the classification is, e.g., by race. Laws analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard are almost never upheld. I think that when a U. of Michigan affirmative action scheme was challenged under equal protection, it withstood strict scrutiny, in the 1990s or early 2000s, and as I recall, that was the first law to stand up to that standard since Korematsu, which legitimated Japanese-American internment camps 50 or 60 years previously (and is widely held to have been decided incorrectly). Under middle-tiered "heightened scrutiny," the law must serve an "important" government interest, and must be "substantially related" to that interest. These laws, then, are more likely to be upheld (but are still usually struck down), because the government's interest no longer has to be "compelling," only "important," and the relationship can be "substantial." The law no longer has to be "necessary." This standard is applied to, e.g., laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. The reason it's easier to discriminate by sex than by race comes down to the differences between "compelling" and "important," and "necessary" and "substantial." Finally, all laws that discriminate on bases not falling under either of the other two standards are analyzed under "rational basis" scrutiny. Under this weakest of standards, the government's interest has to be "legitimate," and the law has to be "rationally related" to the interest. Laws falling under rational basis scrutiny are almost always upheld. Some SCOTUS language has suggested that there's a level slightly higher than rational basis scrutiny. There's a "but" here, though; when the law affects access to a "fundamental right," then strict scrutiny is used regardless of the classification. The Prop 8 ruling was decided (at the 9th Circuit) under strict scrutiny because marriage is a fundamental right, even though sexual orientation is not a classification that in and of itself requires anything more than strict scrutiny. The level of scrutiny to be applied is a good chunk of the battle (though the 9th Circuit said that the ban didn't survive rational basis scrutiny, either; but that's a much harder sell). Precedent, however, is that "mere animus" is NOT a legitimate basis for a law that discriminates, even against a group that isn't protected.

Anyone who would argue that they're legally equal in the USA would be demonstrating a fundamental ignorance about constitutional law.

Good point, Tim...if that's your real name.

I see nothing wrong with consulting top level experts how a different level player might act. Because: Top experts are experienced, often over decades and/or over tens of thousands of hands. They are usually also teachers [and even if not teachers, they often have clients whom they coach] and as such quite familiar with how various level players act/bid/play/defend. They have encountered thousands of all level players at the table. They were once themselves "not-top-level-expert" etc. etc. I don't think anything's wrong with consulting top level experts, either; I just pointed out that what they would do isn't the point - the point is what players at the level of the player in question would do. I do, though, think it's better practice to consult players at that level rather than one step removed, particularly when one of the question might be "What bids would you consider?"

FWIW, I think the relevant comparison group for people who think the bid is good/reasonable/rational/stupid/impossible is really players of his caliber, not the top players in the world. This may be another distinction without a difference.

There were a couple of hand strength features alleged by Truscott in his book, most from the observations of Don Oakie. One pertained to whether the cards were held in the left hand (bad hand) or the right (good hand), and another pertained to whether the cards were held "low" (bad) or "high" (good). Those were from past tournaments, not the tournament in question. The signal for which the controversy errupted was only alleged to be about heart length. At least that was my understanding. Yes, that's right. It's in Truscott's book, but it's not from the event where all hell broke loose.

There were a couple of hand strength features alleged by Truscott in his book, most from the observations of Don Oakie. One pertained to whether the cards were held in the left hand (bad hand) or the right (good hand), and another pertained to whether the cards were held "low" (bad) or "high" (good).

Possibly because the Directors are concerned with the application of principles of what is called, in my country at least, 'natural justice'. This is analogous to but not the same as, as I understand it, to concepts of due process in the US. The Directors are concerned with evidence of wrong-doing and despite the apparent conviction of many non-legally trained posters, the existence of the hand and the making of the bid and the fortuitous outcome are not evidence of UI. Arguing that such matters are evidence reveals primarily the arguer's ignorance of basic rules of evidence. Any player being polled, by someone they respect who is obviously pissed off, is likely to have the same instinctive reaction that I and many others had on first reading the original post. It smells. It is suggestive of UI. My suggestion: repoll the top 100 players, or so many of them as were consulted, and invite them to read the non-flame parts of the thread and then offer their opinion. Several posters here backed away from their initial reaction...I know I did. While some will probably remain convinced that there must have been cheating involved, I suspect that many would change their minds....and I doubt that any with actual training in these sorts of issues would remain of the view that there should be a committee hearing. There has to be EVIDENCE before a player is subjected to a committee. There was none, as least as far as we can tell from what has been posted here. Indeed, it seems that there was likely very strong evidence negating the most probable suspicious possibility...a stacked deck. Saying that there was evidence doesn't make it so, not matter how vehemently one believes in one's argument. I know, the same can be said for my point of view....the difference is that I can point to decades of experience dealing with the rules of evidence, which are largely the same in the US as they are in Canada (one of the most authoritative texts on evidence used in Canada is US) Whether you think the 'smell' remains or not is another story entirely....but the 'smell' is not evidence. I think that a good deal of relevant evidence has been noted on this thread, on both sides. Inadmissible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.