ehem...NO CHATS!
Einstein
Sort:
Are you Will'o the wisp Feufollet? You're unavailable for challenges so I can't. You can challenge me. Twice?
Mar 15, 2015
0
#84
Optimissed wrote:
Are you Will'o the wisp Feufollet? You're unavailable for challenges so I can't. You can challenge me. Twice?
Ha...didn't realize it's disabled. Lemme see. I was suppose to go on holiday...
Huey, do you want a coupla games too? I'm not playing at the moment so four new games would be fine.
not often you'd see a guy challenge someone hundreds of points below him. must fancy his chances.
Never mind Millionaire. I won't challenge you because I know your 2000 was a labour of attrition, playing people thousands of points below you!
I wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Mar 15, 2015
0
#89
millionairesdaughter wrote:
not often you'd see a guy challenge someone hundreds of points below him. must fancy his chances.
is it that obvious, millionaire? 
3 days a move can be slow you know ... but OK.
I fancied four games or so because tournaments are hard to come by and in the one I'm playing in, I'm sort of between rounds and one of the groups looks like it will take another three or four months.
Mar 15, 2015
0
#92
Optimissed wrote:
Never mind Millionaire. I won't challenge you because I know your 2000 was a labour of attrition, playing people thousands of points below you! I wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
I'm 100% sure millionaire would proabably put you to shame in the game.
I normally knock back all challenges from people less than about 1900 but a game of chess can make new friends.
I just noticed her 2000 is in standard chess rather than slow chess.
Mar 15, 2015
0
#95
I should not make any more moves in my inebriated state.
Best wait til I'm sober...if I can control my compulsion.
Stop playing while you're still ok. Continue tomorrow.
Mar 15, 2015
0
#98
Strange goings on on my block...white noise...my dogs barking like crazy at the door
Optimissed wrote:
This is a staggeringly ignorant post and belies very little musical understanding. Just because a piece of music might be mellifluous doesn't make it a song! One could hardly consider his Fantasie (KV475) a "song" - you must consider the form. And what exactly is "voice accompaniment"?? How familiar are you with Mozart's body of work exactly? Please, give examples of these simplistic/childlike "tunes". Mozart's roccoco style produces beautifully ornate, expressive and colourful melodies - to dismiss his compositions as child's play is just plain ignorant. Take the opening bars of the said work, for example - a hauntingly beautiful, chromatic melody. With perhaps the exception of J.S. Bach, his body of work (which is substantial) demonstrates a consistent level of technical mastery, invention and expressiveness that is arguably unequalled. You are also far wide of the mark when you suggest that Mozart's music was for the musically illiterate - he wrote for the highest calibre of musicians (consider his clarinet concerto for example, written for his virtuoso friend Anton Stadler) and they all held in the highest regards (Haydn said he was the greatest composer known to him) - scholars, musicians of today still do. The intended derogatory comparison to "pop music" is utter nonsense.
Since much of what Mozart wrote can be sung, it can be considered as songs or tunes, whether or not they were expressly written for voice accompaniment, which many, of course, were. A lot of his tunes are simplistic or childlike although some of them are more ambitious but he repeats the same motifs both within his tunes and between them. In general Mozart is boring, unlike some other Baroque composers. He composed what would now be considered "light music", the pop music of his era, written to appeal to those without a sophisticated appreciation of music as opposed, say, to pop's equivalent in jazz-rock. It's typical of some chess players to get all pedantic over detail and entirely miss the intention. Never mind, when you worship achievment, it's easy to get it mixed up with brilliance.
I thought the reference to mailer was a reference to you so your comment's no surprise.
WRONG