Week Nine

New York vs. (versUS) Baltimore:

First, I’d like to compliment Greg for his use of the “X” symbol in the standings for “eliminated”. In leagues like the NHL, the NBA, and this one, this is much more informative than the indication of what teams have clinched playoff spots. The only suggestion I would make is to list the standings in reverse order, so that I can quickly glean the important info without having to mess with the scroll bar or the Page Down key. Anyway, don’t trust anyone over thirty. At least when it comes to playing chess. New York, 2.5-1.5.


Philadelphia vs. Boston:

This match illustrates the paradox of the all-but-mathematically eliminated team: Philadelphia needs this match so badly that they hardly need it at all. I have always a paradox to be named after me, but go watch them name it for someone else. Boston, 2.5-1.5.


New Jersey vs. Miami:




BELJUM
OO_O_ _

UTANGO
OO_O_ _

CHILZ
_O_ _O

KREAM
_ _ _OO


Answer: _ _ _ _ _ SAID, “_ _ _ _ _!”


Miami, 2.5-1.5


Dallas vs. San Francisco:

I heard that NN would be playing board four San Francisco, so I looked up some of his games. His style seems to be a mixture of “The Allies” and “Three Swedish Amateurs”, who share a healthy regard for material although they occasionally neglect development. But I have played and watched enough live games to be immune to the bias of game publishers; in real life, material usually prevails. SF, 2.5-1.5.


Seattle vs Tennessee:

To quote a former member of a defunct chess club formerly to be found midtown in America’s largest city, “if I go, I’m taking someone with me”. Burnett was around some in those days, and I am guessing some of the attitude wore off (onto him, I mean). Tennessee, 2.5-1.5.


Chicago vs. Arizona:

The all-but-all-but eliminated face the all-but eliminated here. I see the all-but-all-but putting the all-but out of their misery, perhaps with nembutal. But maybe not. But probably. Chicago, 2.5-1.5.