Monday, September 19, 2011

Week Four, part two

Manhattan vs. New Jersey:



And the Sauce will be boss.


Carolina vs. New York:

Last week saw the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and there were many solemn commemorations, but I now will share a more light-hearted chess-related remembrance of the WTC. One day during the Kasparov-Anand world championship match, the day's game had just ended, and a woman asked where the bathroom was. She was pointed to a room with the word "black" taped to the door. This did in fact match her approximate skin color, but she was nonetheless taken aback, as it was already 1995 and she was comfortably north of the Mason-Dixon line. She briefly rationalized that a hundred-odd floors above street level, the winds of history might blow somewhat differently. Eventually, though, she realized that she had been directed to one of the player bathrooms, since they began to shut down the space as soon as the day's game was over.

I allowed on Monday that to call my pick of New England over Philadelphia an "upset special" would be grossly hyperbolic, but in light of the 0.5-3.5 outcome, I have changed my mind. That was the "upset special". If you missed it, buy your ticket now for next week's. New York.


St. Louis vs. Arizona:

St. Louis's lineup of GM, IM, FM, Untitled is æsthetically pleasing, but Arizona's IM, IM, FM, FM, while perhaps more commonplace, is nonetheless in quiet good taste. Scorpions.


Los Angeles vs. Chicago:

I may be missing a golden opportunity here, but I used "Amanov" in one of last year's jumbles. I do reserve the right, though, to use either Amanov's first name, if I learn how to pronounce them. On the other hand, maybe it's better not to learn the offical correct pronunciation, because that way, I get to decide. Anyway, let us hope that the losing Amanov deals with defeat better than I did when Angelo won the battle of the Youngs. Chicago.

4 comments:

CJ Beissel said...

EXEMPT


VANISH


ZODIAC


ANTHEM


MANDIZHA HAVE MOTT SEE


This is totally wrong isn't it?

Ron Young said...

Only partially. The phrase, though, is 8,3,4,4 not 8,4,4,3 as you have it.

Anonymous said...

MANDIZHA SEE THAT MOVE

Ron Young said...

I hadn't, either.