Indulgence on 1-2?
Doesn’t that introduce the Metropolitan Elite?
Chalfont & Latimer
Sorry for the nitpick, but I think you mean Tahakashi. Otherwise, a very elegant and inspired move, if I may say so.
Incidentally, Berlin '83 was the only time I actually saw the amazing Ffunz play live. I know he was way past his prime by then, and he went out in the last 16, but still… just to see this legend of the game actually in the flesh was quite an inspiring moment. The nice thing is that he retained his infectious enthusiasm for the game right to the end.
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to accept Ffnuz being mentioned. Shot-putters full of steroids was one thing, but having three dozen Soviet metropolises burnt onto his retina really cannot be defended, even by the most stringent application of the 1922 Definitive Rules (Amendments).
I knew someone would drag up that old controversy. * sigh * Look, this isn’t really the time or place for an in-depth debate, but in a nutshell: (1) all the various ‘etched retina’ accusations can be traced back to Schkopfel’s book; (2) Schkopfel presented lots of idle speculation and conjecture but no evidence, apart from a single copy of what was alleged to be a relevant surgical record, but its validity was never proved; (3) Ffunz consistently denied the accusations, even when he had nothing to lose by admitting the truth; (4) even if the accusations were true, greatness in MC isn’t about knowing or memorising the names of the stations, it’s about the brilliance of the moves and the intellectual challenge of the game’s multi-level strategical considerations.
Let’s not forget, Ffunz crucified Schkopfel in the 82 European Open, with a stunning 9-1 victory that is still the widest winning margin in European Masters tournament play. Great players win matches. Bad losers write books - books full of fanciful and unsubstantiated accusations.
Err… yeah… BOLLOCKS
the only people who hold to that are people who read the Sun’s Mornington column.
Last time i checked (and much as i hate pulling rank and speaking as an ex-world champion) we’ve NEVER played according to Murdock’s rules in professional games.
Leaves on the track still stands.
Good cos nobody mentioned him.We were discussing Ffunz
Nothing in your defence is anything that didn’t appear in Shnostcovnicsh Reconvened. And the '82 Open is no good example - there was the boycot by the entire South-Western Aspect, along with the bizarre insistence on application of ruling judgements prior to decisive implementations of such decisions. I cannot believe you could argue that this wasn’t an insult to the traditional Banhumlian nature of the game.
Do I need to quote from the 1981 Morning Star? I hoped such an embarassment could be avoided.
Yeah, go on then.
Last time i checked you were wrong. There’s nothing wrong with you admitting that - it doesn’t make you any less of a player or mean that i respect you any less.
Hell, who do you think it was who nominated you as best newcomer 1986? it certainly wasn’t owl.
I still resent acquiring the title ‘newcomer’ just because I’d entered the seventy-third tier of competitive play. So much ingenuity goes undiscovered in those lower-middle leagues, that it’s a shame so much focus is given to the upper dozen or so international disciplines.
Farringdon
OK. I got ahold of a copy of Mornington Crescent For the Easily Confused by Artax Piffany (3rd Edition, revised). If I am following his suggestions right, the next move should be to try the Yeager-Nodwick Gambit, and play** Snaresbrook**.
If you’ll allow another Yank drive-by move.
I’m assuming Snaresbrook has been played under the proposed Buenas Aires Protocol, which, if I remember correctly, has been acceded to by the Northern Conference. With that, the Islington Variation on the Ashmolean Gamble would suggest Theydon Bois, would it not?
I’ve decided that you guys are making this up as you go.
Foggy Bottom / GWU
Ha! I declare Barracks, and then announce Mornington Crescent or a draw in four moves at most, against any defence.
I was afraid you were correct, and that I had sunk this game with a drive-by. Ashamed that I might have wasted the efforts of the other players, I plundered my resources, and finally found a similar situation from the West African Regionals held in 1954 in Ouagadougou in what is today Burkina Faso. I would hesitate to bring up such an obscure match, were it not for the fact that the judge in that match was the distinguished L’Confus. Not entirely surprising, I suppose, when one remembers that Burkina Faso was then a French colony, but I digress.
All hemming and hawing aside, the move that Mr. Joseph Ki-Zerbo came up with, to prevent nearly an identical win in such a situation, was the lightly-traveled and seldom-played Roding Valley, which I will emulate here. I think you will find it prevents an unfortunately early termination to this game.
It certainly does, I can see this going on for some time, if I keep us locked into that half-spiral with Grange Hill
Rookie mistake 
I move to Byker Grove
I had a horrible suspicion this would cause rancour and acrimony.
Gentlemen: Please try to remember that Morington is a game for gentlemen played by gentlemen to gentlemen’s rules. At least it is in England - Aussie Rules MC is obviously for herberts.
Now please calm down and avoid frankly emotional moves like the one above. I realise that you are upset - and who can blame you, but that’s no reason to lower yourself to the lowest common denominator.
Remember, as the Arch Bishop himself said "dulce et decorum est Morninton Cresent ludare "
So as a calming move, I am rolling the doubles to:
Arnos grove.
What does nid mean actually? Is it an acronym?
Of course.It stands for New International Development which was formalized in 1980 and means that any bilateral sweep can be cut off by placing an Inner Zone station after it.
Oh what the…it’s easier to show than to explain.
owl played a bilateral sweep to Arnos Grove,so I can cut him off by placing an Inner Zone station.The best one is Mansion House
owl is now in NID.
See?