HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones)
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Telephone-Messages: +44 223 33 4900
Address: Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, ENGLAND.
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:34:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.121532.2113@infodev.cam.ac.uk> Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>No -- indeed some people still seem to be interpreting it as a forward
>game.  Maybe it would help if we wrote the moves from bottom to top:

Good idea!

I will therefore prepend my "previous" move:

 Clive Jones	: Great Portland Street

>Guy Barry	: Hammersmith Broadway
>Clive Jones	: Archway
>Guy Barry	: Charing Cross (Embankment)
>Clive Jones	: Blake Hall
>Graeme Hodgson	: Lancaster Gate 
>John Farrell	: Downing Street 
>Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent 

Careful here! By the 1977 degeneracy rules, any player who renders a
reverse game degenerate loses. This is hard to interpret in a
multi-player game, of course - the intent was that the other player
would win in the standard 2-player game. I know of no previous
instances of a reversed multi-player game.

Degenerate games of Rev-MC arise when someone gets the game into a
state which cannot possibly happen in a forward game, and thus which
cannot be traced back to any start position - a stalemate, to borrow
terms from that other great tactical game.

Great Portland Street is seldom played in MC - this is hardly
surprising. Were I playing the forward game, it would be very likely
to be a loser for me. It is also quite hard to reach, along with
several other inner circle stations ("Inner circle" here meaning
stations played as either circle line or one of the other lines using
the same track, i.e. appropriate bits of the Met, H&C and District
lines). Some advantageous-looking plays are therefore liable to
degenerate, notably: Bayswater (anticlockwise lock, in the forward
game), Aldgate (by the infamous Aldgate/Tower Hill gambit on the only
section of track used exclusively by the circle line), Temple and
Sloane Square. There are others, but telling you them would make it
all too easy. (-8

--Clive.
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:29:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.213403.6255@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:

>I will therefore prepend my "previous" move:

>Clive Jones	: Great Portland Street
>Guy Barry	: Hammersmith Broadway
>Clive Jones	: Archway
>Guy Barry	: Charing Cross (Embankment)
>Clive Jones	: Blake Hall
>Graeme Hodgson	: Lancaster Gate 
>John Farrell	: Downing Street 
>Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent 

>Careful here! By the 1977 degeneracy rules, any player who renders a
>reverse game degenerate loses. This is hard to interpret in a
>multi-player game, of course - the intent was that the other player
>would win in the standard 2-player game. I know of no previous
>instances of a reversed multi-player game.

It looks as though it's turning into a two-player game, Clive!
Maybe this is just too advanced for most of the net population...

Guy Barry	: Verney Junction
Clive Jones	: Great Portland Street
Guy Barry	: Hammersmith Broadway
Clive Jones	: Archway
Guy Barry	: Charing Cross (Embankment)
Clive Jones	: Blake Hall
Graeme Hodgson	: Lancaster Gate 
John Farrell	: Downing Street 
Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent 

(In case you don't recognize the station, it's on the long-disused
Buckinghamshire section of the Metropolitan Line.)

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: Re: New year, new game
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:46:23 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <farrell.727486391@coral> farrell@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au (John Farrell) writes:
[...stuff deleted...]
>>Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent

Nice win!  And congratulations (the cheque's in the post :^).

>John Farrell:	Downing Street

Ere, I can't find this in the back of my diary - are you sure it's a
legitimate station?

Oh, what the heck...

Graeme Hodgson  : Lancaster Gate

Another precedent, the first game to *start* with Mornington Crescent!

--
Hodj                                                              ~ ~
Email to graeme@fulcrum.co.uk     | "Well I still prefer woble    O O
 - whenever the mood takes you.   | and eenk" - Dave Budd          *
  The opinions expressed above are all my own work, honest.       \_/
From: tjh@cs.bham.ac.uk (Timothy J Harrison-Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: EC Directive
Date: 19 Jan 93 14:31:18 GMT
Organization: University of Birmingham

Surely all players need to take a referendum before accepting any EC rulings,
except in the UK of course, where parliament decides. In this case, write to
your local MP and ask for a ruling.

Love and kisses,

- Goldie
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Wilson's Defence
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:43:29 GMT

[I'm attempting to keep discussions about play in general separate
from the games themselves, which is why I've followed up twice.]

In article <1993Jan28.164957.9994@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:

>In article <1993Jan28.115626.29240@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>>In article <C1JLMM.588@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk> py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford) writes:
>>>Im afraid i'm a little confused on this point, are you talking about 
>>>Wilson Defence that was used in the MC World Championships in Helsinky,
>>>1973, or the old Raj  champion, Brig. Gen. Massington-Thorpe, whose
>>>famous defense (named after his batman) was used at Trinity College
>>>Cambridge, against the Oxbridge champion JPH Henderson, MA, in a grudge
>>>match in 1904 ?
>>
>>I've never heard of the 1904 one!  My definition of Wilson's Defence
>>is "any northward move employing the triangle rule that's not
>>constrained by lateral blocking" (in this case the final condition
>>is of course redundant).
>
>The two are *not* actually different. They are merely different
>wordings of the same ploy. The version Guy gives above is a useful way
>to think of it when constrained on the City branch of the Northern
>Line, if Borowicz Exchanges on the Circle Line are not possible -
>indeed, it's almost the only way to avoid losing. The reasons *why* it
>stops you losing are obscure, to say the least - I've seen a proof,
>somewhere, but certainly can't remember it now! I just believe that it
>works.

I think it's got something to do with the non-reversibility of
bridging moves, but I'm not sure.

>>Now, the alternative representations of the defence are:
>
>2) A _northing_ (note, not "northward") move that hops more than one
>blocking intersection, by use of a triple-interchanging pair of lines.

Yes, that's pretty standard.

>3) A northwards move to a terminus, subject to (but not overriding)
>lateral blocking.

>This is the variant played in the 1904 game. I'm not surprised that
>Guy is unaware of it - since we (Cambridge) lost very badly, it has
>been hushed up a little around here. I learned Mornington Crescent
>before arriving, however, and thus heard about that game in other
>circles.

That's interesting to know.  I can't see how it would be much
use nowadays, with both the Victoria and the Jubilee lines making
the possibilities for lateral blocking much more limited, but
I can see there might be a few contexts where it was appropriate
(if your opponent had used three consecutive interchange moves,
for instance).

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: farrell@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au (John Farrell)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:25:44 GMT
Organization: James Cook University

In <1993Jan26.141801.8736@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>This is a difficult one!  Windsor to Verney Junction is Wilson's
>Defence, which means that the previous move must have been on the
>Piccadilly Line. 

  Wrong! There is another move you're not thinking about! I have already
played the move in another article, but let me just give you a hint: what
would happen if there was a breakdown on the Piccadilly line?

John
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Tangled threads
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:24:08 GMT

In article <C1EJDA.1Cz@fulcrum.co.uk> rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor) writes:
>
>Anyway, here goes:
>
>Richard Taylor:		Westminster (slow, but sure)

I'm thoroughly confused now.  Where does this move belong?  I won the
last "straight" game, and there's now a reverse game going on in a
separate thread.  Is this the start of a new game?

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: Re: EC Directive
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:33:52 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, tjh@cs.bham.ac.uk (Timothy J Harrison-Austin) writes:
>Surely all players need to take a referendum before accepting any EC rulings,
>except in the UK of course, where parliament decides. In this case, write to
>your local MP and ask for a ruling.

	Ah, but this is the Usenet. So, as we are, possibly catering for
	a international audience, and indeed, competitors, should not
	EC rulings overrule indervidual nation rules for the sake
	of clarity.

	Or is this just a copout.

	If not, whos rules do we use.

	This could get very confusing.

	Dave Ford.

	PS, where exactly is this news group being distributed to?
		Is it UK only?



-- 
	 _________________________________________________
	|  // /||\/| | / ` /| ||       Dave Ford.	  |
	|\X/ /^||  | | \_7/^| ||py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk |
	 -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: tim@shrimp.ph.ic (Tim Horbury)
Subject: A little question...
Organization: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11:37:47 GMT

I like to think of myself as a club-standard MC player at London and
National level, but I must admit that the International games going on
here are a bit above my head (I never can get the hang of the *Westward*
intercontinental moves, and I always seem to get bogged down in South America). 
I only discovered this newsgroup just before Christmas, so I'm still a bit 
baffled about some of the conventions that are allowed here. Since I'd like to
be sure I post legal moves, could I ask a question:

Are we allowed to use calculators?

Many thanks

Tim Horbury

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group        ULYSSES
Blackett Laboratory                        A joint NASA/ESA project
Imperial College
London

e-mail: tim@uk.ac.ic.ph.spva               Insert your favourite disclaimer here 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: mjl17@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Michael Lush)
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Organization: U. of Cambridge, England
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:18:48 GMT

	Hello its a while since I last posted,  normaly I feel I can add 
little to the discussion,  however this is a subject close to 
my heart.

>Solitaire MC is a completely different kettle of fish, and I am not so
>sure it even *could* be played in reverse very easily.

>--Clive.


	Solitaire MC is possible,  and you are correct it is not easy,
however certain assumptions can be made which simplyfy the problem 
eighteen fold:-

	*All up escalators are assumed to be out of order.

	*Straddling is alowed within one space of waterway.

	*Kings Cross is considered wild on prime moves.

and finaly

	*Brent Cross is assumed closed after 6pm.

	Of course in a straight game these assumptions are indefensible
however in reverse solitaire MC I find that they retain the essential 
richness of the game,  without increasing the game duration to an 
unaceptable level.

	On a side note reverse MC can form the basis for facinating 
problems,  currently I am trying to solve MC to Warren St. useing 
standard rules (Miller and Rubek 1967),  for 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 player
games,  (I understand that Rushton et al has proved that this route is 
impossible for 3 player games but this is only from a secondary source 
does anyone have the reference?  and better still does anyone have the 
follow up I'd love to know if this proof has been substantiated).



-- 
Michael

University of Cambridge,               Email mjl17@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk
Department of Pathology,               Tel (0223) 333713
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:14:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.164957.9994@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:

>In article <1993Jan28.115626.29240@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>>There's no road called "The Embankment" -- can I assume you mean
>>Victoria Embankment?
>
>Oooh - no. You certainly cannot assume he means that! "The Embankment"
>has, in the past, been the name of "Embankment" station. By the tardis
>rules, we have to allow this as an alternative name, which a)
>circumvents the "one-word-name" rule, and b) Fixes us to before the
>date of the Victoria Line for the forseeable future.

In that case, I claim a win (for the minimal game):

Guy Barry	: Marylebone
Clive Jones	: British Museum STATION
Dave Ford	: The Embankment
Guy Barry	: Gloucester Road
Clive Jones	: Windsor
Guy Barry	: Verney Junction
Clive Jones	: Great Portland Street
Guy Barry	: Hammersmith Broadway
Clive Jones	: Archway
Guy Barry	: Charing Cross (Embankment)
Clive Jones	: Blake Hall
Graeme Hodgson	: Lancaster Gate 
John Farrell	: Downing Street 
Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent 

My reasoning is this: Marylebone is clearly a legitimate opening move.
Marylebone to British Museum is anticlockwise quartering, so that
invokes Erlbaum's Exception.  Now, recall that the precedent in Smith
v Muller 1935 means that any name including the word "The" *may* be
treated as though "The" were absent.  This means that "The Embankment" is
legitimized on the next move because it's theoretically a single word!
From then on play is straightforward.

Any objections?  If no one disputes this, we can continue back with
the maximal game (much more fun!).  Otherwise I fear we may be in for
a hard time...


--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: jon@alex.com (Jonathan Heitler)
Return-Path: <news>
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd, London, England
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:44:23 +0000

In article <1993Jan24.213403.6255@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
|>
|>  I know of no previous
|> instances of a reversed multi-player game.
|> 

Back in the good old 1987 Symposium, held at Exeter (St. Davids) there
was a reversed multi-player game as one of the fringe events. It lasted
a record 4972 moves before the cider ran out.

Jonathan
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: u2gps@csc.liv.ac.uk (G.P. Sereno)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: Re: New year, new game
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:54:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Liverpool University

>John Farrell : Downing Street
>Graeme Hodgson : Lancaster Gate

Hmmmm. A Central Return Ticket Play if I'm not mistaken.  To counter this, I'm going to have to go with the bear essentials in moves. Thus :-
                  PADDINGTON

Gary Sereno
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:18:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.132907.6511@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:

This is a difficult one!  Windsor to Verney Junction is Wilson's
Defence, which means that the previous move must have been on the
Piccadilly Line.  But then Great Portland Street to Hammersmith
Broadway could only have happened if penalty 2B was in operation,
so that rules out all stations east of Knightsbridge.  Anything
west of Earl's Court would obviously make the game degenerate,
so that leaves me very little leeway!  (I have a feeling we're
near the start somehow...)

Guy Barry	: Gloucester Road
Clive Jones	: Windsor
Guy Barry	: Verney Junction
Clive Jones	: Great Portland Street
Guy Barry	: Hammersmith Broadway
Clive Jones	: Archway
Guy Barry	: Charing Cross (Embankment)
Clive Jones	: Blake Hall
Graeme Hodgson	: Lancaster Gate 
John Farrell	: Downing Street 
Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent 



--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: EC Directive
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:35:50 GMT

In article <C1F1wH.7wx@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk> py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford) writes:
>
>	PS, where exactly is this news group being distributed to?
>		Is it UK only?

the world.

i have been lurking in an attempt to find out WHY someone in alt.games.
abstract would have made the preposterous claim that Mornington Crescent
is a game with no defects.  from what i can see, you need a goodly amount
of geographical and subway knowledge of the UK, plus smatterings of
Europe and beyond, to be able to contend - a defect right there.  :-):-)

- nate
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: sp@cs.city.ac.uk (S. Page)
Subject: Re: Lost
Organization: City University
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:01:18 GMT

In <farrell.728094487@coral> farrell@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au (John Farrell) writes:

>In <C1Exw3.4pq@fulcrum.co.uk> graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson) writes:
>>Now wandering the line somewhere between Paddington and Great Portland
>>Street, pick me up if you see me.

>  OK, then:

>John Farrell:	London Bridge (in a cab, with Graeme Hodgson)

Ah, good. Now, by the 1955 Traverse Amendment I can go by the 
following route... (which, incidentally, takes me home)

Stella Page: South Croydon
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: Re: Tangled threads
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:56:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Organization: William's Wonderful Wonky Widget Warehouse


In article <C1GFL3.Er4@fulcrum.co.uk> graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson) writes:

#  Getting loster all the time...

From the 1987 Beginners' Guide, vol 7, page 319:

`If you get lost, try a perambulating any cardinal boundary until you
find a kinetic bifurcating anomaly.  At that point pick an adjacent
quasiperiodic crossover.  For example, if Colonel Mustard just played
Stratford or Walthamstow, you could offer Hammersmith.  Your partner
would probably bid Uxbridge or perhaps offer you six hundred pounds for
Liverpool Street.  The opponents might be able to guess what types of
railcard and ticket you have, but you can be reasonably certain that you
won't create any problems for your own side.'

I think this paragraph was rewritten in the Trans-Manche Link edition
because the strategy is susceptible to Sperry's Rebuttal, but the
general principle still holds. 

Ken Johnson


-- 
Son, all the pretty, intelligent, healthy     #    I have discovered of this
young women are taken. It's a basic rule of   #    basic rule of the universe
the universe, and if you don't like it, go    #    a most remarkable proof,
somewhere else.        -- my dad  1906-1992   #    which this .signature is too
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:32:14 GMT

In article <C17I9C.257@fulcrum.co.uk> graeme@fulcrum.co.uk (Graeme Hodgson) writes:

>Another precedent, the first game to *start* with Mornington Crescent!

Aha!  So you all guessed what I was planning -- a game of Reverse Mornington
Crescent.  In case anyone hasn't come across this, it's the version where
you start with the last move and trace your way back to the first.
So we have:

Guy Barry	: Mornington Crescent (the last move)
John Farrell	: Downing Street (the penultimate move)
Graeme Hodgson  : Lancaster Gate (the antepenultimate move)

Follow that, or rather precede it...

[By the way, in response to Graeme's doubts about Downing Street,
remember that Mornington Crescent station is closed and so the
penultimate move doesn't have to be a station -- the penultimate
move in the last game was Bloomsbury Square.]

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Subject: Re: Reverse Mornington Crescent
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:26:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.games.mornington.cresent
Organization: William's Wonderful Wonky Widget Warehouse


In article <1993Jan24.213403.6255@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk
(Clive Jones) writes:

#  I know of no previous instances of a reversed multi-player game. 

A reversed multi-player game took place between the officers of the
Second Infantry Batallion and those of the Spitzenbangbang Alleskrushing
Tankensoldaten in the no-mans'-land between the trenches at Ypres on
Christmas Day, 1917. 

At about 9.30 a.m.  one of the German officers raised a white shirt tied
to a rifle and called across the minefield ``Hey Johnny, wanna play
football?'' The British officers called back ``No, Fritz, but we'll beat
you at Mornington Crescent!''

The reply ``OK, we play you at the Reversed Version.  Heil Hitler!''
caused astonishment.  The Brits yelled back `Mornington Crescent!' and
after a vicious competition the British won by 2400 points to 1760,
barely holding on to Park Lane and Mayfair and saved when
fifteen-year-old Hans Pferdenfresser hit a Request Stop Exemption and
had to play an eastbound Watford Teacup from the Aldwych. 

Unfortunately the tale ends tragically.  Pferdenfresser was taken back
behind the lines, court martialled and shot for carelessness,
dereliction of duty, and attempting to travel north of Rickmansworth on
the Metropolitan Line with a two-and-sixpenny Red Rover. 

The full story and the moves table are recounted in `Mornington
Crescentia', cccxlvi (4), pages 72 to 83. 


-- 
Son, all the pretty, intelligent, healthy     #    I have discovered of this
young women are taken. It's a basic rule of   #    basic rule of the universe
the universe, and if you don't like it, go    #    a most remarkable proof,
somewhere else.        -- my dad  1906-1992   #    which this .signature is too