Chessville Vignettes
Rob
enjoy.
http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
Taylor Kingston
A few things in the Frank Marshall article strike me as odd:
1) Marhalll is described as "conqueror of Lasker, Capablanca,
Rubinstein." While he did win some games against these three, overall
he had a decidedly losing record against them, especially the first
two: +2 -12 =11 vs. Lasker, +2 -22 =28 vs. Capablanca, and +9 -11
=16 vs. Rubinstein. These are hardly the stats of a conqueror. It would
have been more accurate to say something like "At various times
Marshall won games against Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein and other
greats of his day."
2) "In 1904 [Marshall] won the Cambridge Springs event by 1.5
points over Lasker; it was Lasker's first tournament defeat in ten
years!" If by "tournament defeat" you mean that Lasker failed to
take first place, the span of time involved was not ten years, but well
less than nine. The Hastings tournament, where Lasker placed 3rd,
finished on 2 September 1895, while Cambridge Springs ended 19 May
1904, making the time span 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days.
3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
his games exciting to watch." While a sense of fair play can make one
an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
A few comments on the Kashdan article:
1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.
3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
the word "tied" correctly.
4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
Closed Championship.
5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.
6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.
7) Of Kashdan's Olympic record, the article says "He won two
gold, one silver, one bronze, individual medals and one fourth place
overall finish." This is wording is a bit awkward and creates some
confusion as to whether individual or team medals are being discussed.
As an individual, Kashdan had the following Olympic results:
1928: Best board one score (individual gold medal) and best overall
(86.7%).
1930: 4th-best board one score (82.4%, behind Alekhine, Rubinstein,
and Flohr). However, it was not a "fourth place overall finish" as
claimed in the article: Kashdan's score was also exceeded by
Havasi's 85.7% (+10 =4) at 5th board for Hungary.
1931: 3rd-best board one score (70.6%, behind Alekhine and
Bogolyubov, individual bronze medal).
1933: 2nd-best board one score (71.4%, behind Alekhine, individual
silver medal).
1937: Best board three score (87.5%, individual gold medal). This
appears to be the best overall score as well, though Foldeak's
"Chess Olympiads" says that prize went to Andre Steiner, despite
the crosstable showing him with a score of 80.6%.
US teams with Kashdan had the following results:
1928: 2nd place (silver medal)
1930: 6th place
1931: 1st place (gold medal)
1933: 1st place (gold medal)
1937: 1st place (gold medal)
8) "He defeated Lajos Steiner (+5, =2, -3) ..." The Oxford
Companion says the score was +5 -1, but checking other sources (e.g.
Feenstra Kuiper's "Hundert Jahre Schachzweikämpfe"), I believe
+5 -2 =3 is correct. If not, ChessBase has four spurious
Kashdan-Steiner games on its MegaDatabase 2005. It's nice that the
article gets at least this right.
9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.
Rob
Very good points! Nothing to quibble over with you.But some points
might be considered matters of opinion.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may
> >
> > enjoy.
> >
> > http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
> >
> > Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
>
> A few comments on the Kashdan article:
>
> 1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
> Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
> Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
> 2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
> phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
> behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.
Right behind implies only that he was behind him. How close is
subjective.
> 3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
> incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
> second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
> writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
> the word "tied" correctly.
> 4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
> never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
> the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
> Closed Championship.
Again, I don't know but in defense of the author, if the championship
was played in an "open" format, then saying the "open championship" is
another hair splitter. But I don't know one way or the other.
> 5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
> That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
> seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
> event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
> time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.
There may be some confusion. I don't really know
Yep.
> 9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
> in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.
If all of these errors are persent and documented, I would send them in
for inclusion in the article. They are alowing others to do the same.
Why not even you?
Rob
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 15, 1:08 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> Hi Taylor,
> Very good points! Nothing to quibble over with you.
Yet you proceed to quibble.
> But some points
> might be considered matters of opinion.
No, only one (the meaning of "right behind") can be considered at all
a matter of opinion. The rest are matters of recorded, objective fact.
> > 1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
> > Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
> > Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
> > 2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
> > phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
> > behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.
> Right behind implies only that he was behind him. How close is
> subjective.
Ah, then please tell us exactly what distance behind qualifies as
"right behind." Would these other 2nd-place finishers qualify?
Albin at New York 1893
Janowski, Pillsbury and Maroczy at London 1899
Nimzovitch at San Remo 1930
Bogolyubov at Bled 1931
Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election
McGovern in the 1972 presidential election
Sonny Liston in his rematch with Cassius Clay
Joe Frazier vs. George Foreman
Frank Bruno vs. Mike Tyson
> > 3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
> > incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
> > second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
> > writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
> > the word "tied" correctly.
> > 4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
> > never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
> > the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
> > Closed Championship.
> Again, I don't know but in defense of the author, if the championship
> was played in an "open" format, then saying the "open championship" is
> another hair splitter. But I don't know one way or the other.
Indeed you don't, Rob, or you would not say such a silly thing as "if
the championship was played in an 'open' format." That's rather like
saying "If the War of 1812 was fought in the 1950s ..."
> > 5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
> > That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
> > seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
> > event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
> > time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.
> There may be some confusion.
There is definitely confusion, Rob: yours and Mr. Bartelski's.
> I don't really know
If you know nothing about this subject, then there is no point in
your commenting.
> > 9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
> > in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.
>
> If all of these errors are persent [sic] and documented, I would send them in
> for inclusion in the article.
Rob, I do not want you to send anything of mine anywhere.
> They are alowing others to do the same.
> Why not even you?
I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 1:08 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Hi Taylor,
> > Very good points! Nothing to quibble over with you.
>
> Yet you proceed to quibble.
>
> > But some points
> > might be considered matters of opinion.
>
> No, only one (the meaning of "right behind") can be considered at all
> a matter of opinion. The rest are matters of recorded, objective fact.
Again, That is your opinion Taylor. Closeness is subjective. There is
no where that I know of where you will find "right behind" defined as a
1/2 point difference.
> > > 1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
> > > Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
> > > Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
> > > 2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
> > > phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
> > > behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.
>
> > Right behind implies only that he was behind him. How close is
> > subjective.
> Ah, then please tell us exactly what distance behind qualifies as
> "right behind." Would these other 2nd-place finishers qualify?
I don't know. I would imagine finishing 2nd behind someone who finished
1st would be right behind them in the standing and right ahead of the
third place finisher.
> Albin at New York 1893
> Janowski, Pillsbury and Maroczy at London 1899
> Nimzovitch at San Remo 1930
> Bogolyubov at Bled 1931
> Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election
> McGovern in the 1972 presidential election
> Sonny Liston in his rematch with Cassius Clay
> Joe Frazier vs. George Foreman
> Frank Bruno vs. Mike Tyson
>
> > > 3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
> > > incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
> > > second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
> > > writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
> > > the word "tied" correctly.
> > > 4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
> > > never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
> > > the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
> > > Closed Championship.
>
> > Again, I don't know but in defense of the author, if the championship
> > was played in an "open" format, then saying the "open championship" is
> > another hair splitter. But I don't know one way or the other.
> Indeed you don't, Rob, or you would not say such a silly thing as "if
> the championship was played in an 'open' format." That's rather like
> saying "If the War of 1812 was fought in the 1950s ..."
Taylor, you don't know either as neither of us possess the power to get
inside of another humans brain to determine their though processes. If
you have that power, let me know and I will gladly concede your
ability.
:-)
> > > 5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
> > > That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
> > > seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
> > > event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
> > > time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.
>
> > There may be some confusion.
>
> There is definitely confusion, Rob: yours and Mr. Bartelski's.
>
> > I don't really know
> If you know nothing about this subject, then there is no point in
> your commenting.
Ah, now we come to the real issue.
oops. too late... they were already censored and deleted. :-)
> > They are alowing others to do the same.
> > Why not even you?
>
> I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
> Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> history.
If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
be done. That is a very arrogant position to take. It has been
interesting to watch your personality and disposition change online
over the last two years Taylor. You have become a much harsher and less
tolerant and helpful person. So many of your current posts contain
little of value but venom. I am sorry for this as the lose of
yourconcience is a great loss to those of us who may wish to profit
from your knowledge.
Rob
Taylor Kingston
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
> > Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> > available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> > historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> > unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> > not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> > history.
>
> If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
> be done.
What a bizarre statement. Your ability to mishandle logic is truly
dazzling.
> That is a very arrogant position to take.
It would be, but I know of no one who takes it, least of all myself.
> It has been
> interesting to watch your personality and disposition change online
> over the last two years Taylor. You have become a much harsher and less
> tolerant and helpful person.
Rob, I will be blunt. You might consider that your behavior here --
including (but not limited to) obtuseness, refusal to accept facts,
glaring logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, and a tendency to
meddle in matters of which by your own admission you are totally
ignorant -- rather quickly exhaust one's store of tolerance. And your
persistence in these tendencies indicates that help is wasted on you.
> So many of your current posts contain
> little of value but venom. I am sorry for this as the lose [sic] of
> your concience [sic] ...
??? I put that through Babelfish, but it still didn't make sense.
> is a great loss to those of us who may wish to profit
> from your knowledge.
Anyone wishing to profit from what small knowledge I have is welcome
to do so. If and when you sincerely wish to, rather than make fatuous
disputes over matters not subject to dispute, please let me know.
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > > I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
> > > Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> > > available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> > > historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> > > unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> > > not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> > > history.
> >
> > If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
> > be done.
> What a bizarre statement. Your ability to mishandle logic is truly
> dazzling.
Thank You.
> > That is a very arrogant position to take.
>
> It would be, but I know of no one who takes it, least of all myself.
Perhaps you think you didn't take it. In My opinion, you did by using
such exclusive qualifiers by labling others as "unqualified". As far as
I know there is no certification process for history writers. I am very
sure that the author could probably appologize to each of the 100 or so
"knowledgable" persons who take chess history authorship
to be such a pristine artform.
> > It has been
> > interesting to watch your personality and disposition change online
> > over the last two years Taylor. You have become a much harsher and less
> > tolerant and helpful person.
> Rob, I will be blunt. You might consider that your behavior here --
> including (but not limited to) obtuseness, refusal to accept facts,
> glaring logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, and a tendency to
> meddle in matters of which by your own admission you are totally
> ignorant -- rather quickly exhaust one's store of tolerance. And your
> persistence in these tendencies indicates that help is wasted on you.
Taylor, I will also be blunt. you have a particularly annoying tendancy
to become obtuse and abrasive over small points of syntax. But you are
not alone in this tendancy. There are many others who suffer from it
here as well. You also have an annoying tendancy to meddle into things
in which you were not invited or know nothing about. Let me correct
that, into things which by your estimation you have something of value
to contribute.
> > So many of your current posts contain
> > little of value but venom. I am sorry for this as the loss of
> > your conscience .
>
> ??? I put that through Babelfish, but it still didn't make sense.
You have lost your compassion and your ability to look beyond your own
self importance, IMO.
> > is a great loss to those of us who may wish to profit
> > from your knowledge.
>
> Anyone wishing to profit from what small knowledge I have is welcome
> to do so. If and when you sincerely wish to, rather than make fatuous
> disputes over matters not subject to dispute, please let me know.
Taylor, It is you who did this. Rather than concede that a statement
like "right behind" means 1/2 point or 5 pts is silly. To have
mentioned it within the context of a meaningful and useful critique was
to call into question the sincerity of your entire critique.
Now you have accused me personally of something called "intellectual
dishonesty". What exactly do you think that is? Down here someone is
either a liar or not. Seems to me that to call someone a liar without
proof is something a bit worse. But please, prove to me that I am a
liar. If you can't, then perhaps you should temper yourself.
Rob
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
> Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> history.
Bravo, Mr. Kingston, bravo!
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
<snipped>.
>
> 6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
> Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
> Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.
Taylor, you are correct in that the Chess Review was begun even before
the European outbreak of WWII. But according to my limited knowledge I
found this about the Chess Review's co-founder:
as quoted in this website
http://www.jewsinsports.org/profile.asp?sport=chess&ID=71
...................................................................................................................................
Horowitz, Israel Albert
Birth and Death Dates:
Nov. 15, 1907 - Jan. 18, 1973
Career Highlights:
Horowitz took part in the Chess Olympiads as a member of the U.S. team:
1931: scored 9 points out of 13
1935: 12 out of 16
1937 and 1950 (results unknown).
After his 1936 victory in the American Chess Federation tournament,
Horowitz became a member of the American team, which took the 1937
international team title.
He won the 1936 and 1943 U.S. Open, and tied for 1st place with Kashdan
in 1938.
Horowitz was the editor of The Chess Review until 1969, co-founding the
magazine with Kashdan in 1932.
Origin:
Los Angeles, USA (b. Brooklyn, NY)
Category:
International Master: 1950
...........................................................................................................................
Rob
><snipped>
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > > I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
> > > Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> > > available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> > > historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> > > unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> > > not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> > > history.
> >
> > If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
> > be done.
>
> What a bizarre statement. Your ability to mishandle logic is truly
> dazzling.
It's almost at the level of Sam Sloan or the Nearly an IM 2450.
As for Mitchell's feeble addition to Chessvile, it's right up there
with Philsy's Christmas quiz as one of the funniest examples of
cluelessness writ large.
Rob
The Historian wrote:
> As for Mitchell's feeble addition to Chessvile, it's right up there
> with Philsy's Christmas quiz as one of the funniest examples of
> cluelessness writ large.
Dear Neil,
I didn't write the article in question.
LOLOLOL!
Rob
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 15, 3:41 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > > > TK: I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
> > > > Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> > > > available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> > > > historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> > > > unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> > > > not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> > > > history.
>
> > > RM: If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
> > > be done. That is a very arrogant position to take.
>
> > TK: What a bizarre statement ... It would be, but I know of no one who takes it, least of all myself.
>
> RM: Perhaps you think you didn't take it. In My opinion, you did ...
> Now you have accused me personally of something called "intellectual
> dishonesty". What exactly do you think that is? Down here someone is
> either a liar or not. Seems to me that to call someone a liar without
> proof is something a bit worse. But please, prove to me that I am a
> liar.
"Intellectual dishonesty" is not necessarily the same as lying, Rob,
although it can be. For now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume yours was unintentional. As far an example is concerned, one is
immediately at hand:
I wrote: "The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history."
You characterized that as: "If that were true... then only one volume
or account of anything need be done. That is a very arrogant position
to take."
Which is a complete misrepresentation of my statement. You commit a
logical fallacy known as a "straw-man argument," trying to refute a
position one's opponent has not taken. It is one form of intellectual
dishonesty.
I don't consider this a conscious lie on your part, Rob. Rather, I
would guess that your understanding of the principles of logical
argument is so poor that you write this sort of nonsense in the
mistaken belief that you are scoring a valid rhetorical point.
I've spent enough time on this; I don't intend to argue with you
further. If you prefer your chess history sloppy and full of errors,
then by all means enjoy the "Chessville Vignettes" site, and defend its
honor against evil, arrogant fact-checkers like myself.
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> "Intellectual dishonesty" is not necessarily the same as lying, Rob,
> although it can be. For now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
> assume yours was unintentional. As far an example is concerned, one is
> immediately at hand:
>
> I wrote: "The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
> available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
> historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
> unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
> not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
> history."
>
> You characterized that as: "If that were true... then only one volume
> or account of anything need be done. That is a very arrogant position
> to take."
>
> Which is a complete misrepresentation of my statement. You commit a
> logical fallacy known as a "straw-man argument," trying to refute a
> position one's opponent has not taken. It is one form of intellectual
> dishonesty.
>
Taylor,
I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
information is more factually accurate. Where is disagree is in
claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil. And if it
makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
subject, then it's a good thing. As I see it, the currentchess
literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
general public. If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts. Otherwise
we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
of colorful engaging novels.
> I don't consider this a conscious lie on your part, Rob. Rather, I
> would guess that your understanding of the principles of logical
> argument is so poor that you write this sort of nonsense in the
> mistaken belief that you are scoring a valid rhetorical point.
Probably right. I hate to argue.
> I've spent enough time on this; I don't intend to argue with you
> further.
Okay by me!
Rob
Taylor Kingston
> Taylor Kingston wrote:<snipped>.
> > 6) I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
> > Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.
>
> Taylor, you are correct in that the Chess Review was begun even before
> the European outbreak of WWII. But according to my limited knowledge I
> found this about the Chess Review's co-founder:
> Horowitz was the editor of The Chess Review until 1969, co-founding the
> magazine with Kashdan in 1932.
Thanks. I was not absolutely sure on this point, hence my qualifying
it with the tentative "I believe ..." Checking further, I see that your
source seems to be confirmed by Arnold Denker, who wrote: "In 1933, at
the height of the Great Depression, [Horowitz] got the idea that chess
would have a much larger following if it had a modern magazine ... He
took on Isaac Kashdan as his partner ..." (The Bobby Fischer I Knew and
Other Stories, p. 201). So perhaps Horowitz might even be considered
more of a founder than Kashdan.
Rob
I agree. I think today there is still that struggle going on to create
a "modern" magazine.(whatever that is) to interest the general public
into wanting to learn more about the game.
Additionally I found some interesting information concerning Tarrasch
and Lasker and their opposing styles and methods of thinking. If you
like I would be happy to include a link.
Rob
Rob
> Additionally I found some interesting information concerning Tarrasch
> and Lasker and their opposing styles and methods of thinking. If you
> like I would be happy to include a link.
> Rob
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 15, 4:56 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
> information is more factually accurate.
This is rather like saying "Any kind of restaurant is useful. It is
helpful if they actually serve edible food."
> Where is disagree is in
> claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
> something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil.
Rob, I would have hoped that since I just pointed out your habitual
tendency toward the straw-man fallacy, you would have the good sense to
avoid it. Have I (or anyone) said the of sort factual error seen in
"Chessville Vignettes" is "evil"? No. But it is error.
> And if it
> makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
> subject, then it's a good thing.
Are you seriously trying to claim that error is just as good as fact
if it inspires interest? I hope not. Sounds like the sort of argument
the supermarket tabloids would make, that unfounded gossip about movie
stars is better than truth because more people like to read it.
> As I see it, the currentchess [sic]
> literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
> general public.
Rob, having read countless chess books of all types over a span of
more than 40 years, and having reviewed over 120 books for
ChessCafe.com, I think in all humility I may reasonably suggest that I
know a bit more about "currentchess literature" than you or the average
bear. I also submit that you are again displaying your not
inconsiderable ignorance.
> If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
> direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts.
Babelfish again fails me on this.
> Otherwise
> we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
> of colorful engaging novels.
"Engaging novels"?? So you admit that you want to promote fiction
rather than fact? As far as "boring, dry colorless texbooks" are
concerned, you once again demonstrate a staggering ignorance of recent
chess literature. You also seem totally unaware of the strong recent
surge in general-interest chess books. And to think that "Chess
Vignettes" is contributing to that trend is like a child thinking its
bathtub waves have augmented a Pacific Ocean tsunami.
Rob, to paraphrase Churchill, seldom has someone so uninformed made
such sweeping claims based on so little knowledge. I strongly advise
you to refrain from posting on rgc until you learn at least to
differentiate the distal end of the humerus from the gluteus maximus.
Rob
oh no, Mr. Scarecrow, You did not interpret what I said.I did not say I
promote fiction. I said the current state of dry factual reporting is
about as exciting as reading a text book.
Chess One
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1168893671.5...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Taylor, It is you who did this. Rather than concede that a statement
> like "right behind" means 1/2 point or 5 pts is silly.
The intent of the Vignette was plain enough - the player was the next best
scorer compared with the lead scorer, and he wan't 8 places behind, but
immediately behind. Maybe other Californians can say if 'right behind' only
means half a point behind in their system of speaking?
After first raising this point
[half-point? <grin>]
and carping on it, and as seems necessary for him these days, declaring his
correspondent dishonest [presumably not as dishonest as Mussolini], stating
that his attention span is exhausted by dealing with mortals, etc, as usual
our precision-merchant has run off, declaring himself victorious - somewhat
negating his other writing to the subject, as if, that too, might be subject
to one and only one perspective.
What unusual behavior!
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 16, 8:21 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The intent of the Vignette was plain enough - the player was the next best
> scorer compared with the lead scorer, and he wan't 8 places behind, but
> immediately behind. Maybe other Californians can say if 'right behind' only
> means half a point behind in their system of speaking?
>
> After first raising this point
>
> [half-point? <grin>]
>
> and carping on it, and as seems necessary for him these days, declaring his
> correspondent dishonest [presumably not as dishonest as Mussolini], stating
> that his attention span is exhausted by dealing with mortals, etc, as usual
> our precision-merchant has run off, declaring himself victorious - somewhat
> negating his other writing to the subject, as if, that too, might be subject
> to one and only one perspective.
Notice how Innes and Mitchell quibble only about the one semantic
point in my critique, but say little or nothing about the factual
errors it reports. Checking "Chess Vignettes" today, it looks like none
of the errors have been corrected. I reprise my comments, in the hope
that they may act as responsible custodians of chess history rather
than newsgroup nitwits:
A few things in the Frank Marshall article strike me as odd:
1) Marshalll is described as "conqueror of Lasker, Capablanca,
Rubinstein." While he did win some games against these three, overall
he had a decidedly losing record against them, especially the first
two: +2 -12 =11 vs. Lasker, +2 -22 =28 vs. Capablanca, and +9 -11
=16 vs. Rubinstein. These are hardly the stats of a conqueror. It would
have been more accurate to say something like "At various times
Marshall won games against Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein and other
greats of his day."
2) "In 1904 [Marshall] won the Cambridge Springs event by 1.5
points over Lasker; it was Lasker's first tournament defeat in ten
years!" If by "tournament defeat" you mean that Lasker failed to
take first place, the span of time involved was not ten years, but well
less than nine. The Hastings tournament, where Lasker placed 3rd,
finished on 2 September 1895, while Cambridge Springs ended 19 May
1904, making the time span 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days.
3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
his games exciting to watch." While a sense of fair play can make one
an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
A few comments on the Kashdan article:
1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.
3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
the word "tied" correctly.
4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
Closed Championship.
5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.
6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." Chess Review was begun in 1933, not after WW II.
7) Of Kashdan's Olympic record, the article says "He won two
gold, one silver, one bronze, individual medals and one fourth place
overall finish." This is wording is a bit awkward and creates some
confusion as to whether individual or team medals are being discussed.
Either way, it has factual inaccuracies.
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:21 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > The intent of the Vignette was plain enough - the player was the next best
> > scorer compared with the lead scorer, and he wan't 8 places behind, but
> > immediately behind. Maybe other Californians can say if 'right behind' only
> > means half a point behind in their system of speaking?
> >
> > After first raising this point
> >
> > [half-point? <grin>]
> >
> > and carping on it, and as seems necessary for him these days, declaring his
> > correspondent dishonest [presumably not as dishonest as Mussolini], stating
> > that his attention span is exhausted by dealing with mortals, etc, as usual
> > our precision-merchant has run off, declaring himself victorious - somewhat
> > negating his other writing to the subject, as if, that too, might be subject
> > to one and only one perspective.
>
> Notice how Innes and Mitchell quibble only about the one semantic
> point in my critique, but say little or nothing about the factual
> errors it reports. Checking "Chess Vignettes" today, it looks like none
> of the errors have been corrected. I reprise my comments, in the hope
> that they may act as responsible custodians of chess history rather
> than newsgroup nitwits:
Taylor,
If you disagree with something in the New York Times it would be
pointless and ignorant to complain about it in the Monteray News.
Posting corrections here means nothing. Send your corrections or
complaints to the editor/publisher/author of the article. This is not a
forum to correct anything.
conqueror, vanquisher: someone who is victorious by force of arms, by
force of intellect,by force of will
I do not disagree but niether do I agree with you. I can simply state
that if I ever beat you at a game I would tell everyone I defeated,
bested or conquered you over the board... at least once.
Again, if you care enough to point out errors then at least be prudent
enough to pursue corrections in the appropriate forum.
Rob
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 16, 9:41 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> Taylor,
> If you disagree with something in the New York Times it would be
> pointless and ignorant to complain about it in the Monteray News.
> Posting corrections here means nothing. Send your corrections or
> complaints to the editor/publisher/author of the article. This is not a
> forum to correct anything.
Indeed? Then neither is it a forum to advertise anything. If you post
an announcement about something here, you must accept feedback about it
here.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1168955304.5...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 8:21 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The intent of the Vignette was plain enough - the player was the next best
> scorer compared with the lead scorer, and he wan't 8 places behind, but
> immediately behind. Maybe other Californians can say if 'right behind'
> only
> means half a point behind in their system of speaking?
>
> After first raising this point
>
> [half-point? <grin>]
>
> and carping on it, and as seems necessary for him these days, declaring
> his
> correspondent dishonest [presumably not as dishonest as Mussolini],
> stating
> that his attention span is exhausted by dealing with mortals, etc, as
> usual
> our precision-merchant has run off, declaring himself victorious -
> somewhat
> negating his other writing to the subject, as if, that too, might be
> subject
> to one and only one perspective.
Notice how Innes and Mitchell quibble only about the one semantic
point in my critique, but say little or nothing about the factual
errors it reports.
--Notice how he who raised the issue, announced he would depart it, now
paraphrases a direct quotation inaccurately, since I did in fact write of
his 'other writing'. Having found himself at fault, Kingston immediately
blames other people - and yet the point of finding discussing this fault is
whether right or wrong, for Mr. Kingston there is only one point of view,
and discussion is discouraged.
Checking "Chess Vignettes" today, it looks like none
of the errors have been corrected. I reprise my comments, in the hope
that they may act as responsible custodians of chess history rather
than newsgroup nitwits:
--They is who? Neither Rob Mitchell nor I wrote the piece. I suppose if
Kingston wanted to make corrections to the Vignette he would write to its
editor and state his opinions, perhaps suggesting language he would prefer,
making clear any substantive matters of fact. I can't think that changing
text to "At various times....and other greats of his day." is so very
precise, since who would think Marshall did it all at one time? Anyway,
since Mr. Kingston does not like the slightest other point of view, there is
hardly any reason to suggest other improvement to his own writing and
perspectives offered below.
Phil Innes
Rob
Hey buddy, All I said was it was a neat new section. I guess you might
consider that an advertisement in the most liberal defination but I
don't. Feed back is fine. But to whine about corrections not being made
when you refuse to write to the publication is asinine. <sp>? let me to
that phonetically... ass- a-nine. :-) saves you the extra smart aleck
step of stying babelfish didnt have it.
Now.. why didn't you comment about the synonym of the word "victor"?
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 16, 10:32 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 9:41 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Taylor,
> > > If you disagree with something in the New York Times it would be
> > > pointless and ignorant to complain about it in the Monteray News.
> > > Posting corrections here means nothing. Send your corrections or
> > > complaints to the editor/publisher/author of the article. This is not a
> > > forum to correct anything.
>
> > Indeed? Then neither is it a forum to advertise anything. If you post
> > an announcement about something here, you must accept feedback about it
> > here.
> Hey buddy, All I said was it was a neat new section.
It's not -- it's a sloppy new section.
> I guess you might
> consider that an advertisement in the most liberal defination but I
> don't. Feed back is fine. But to whine about corrections not being made
> when you refuse to write to the publication is asinine.
Chessville is Phil Innes' baby, not mine -- at least, last I heard,
he still called himself their business manager. If he prefers to let
the site mislead readers, leaving known errors there as a monument to
his own ignorance, indolence and stubbornness, who am I to say him nay?
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 16, 10:32 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 9:41 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > Taylor,
> > > > If you disagree with something in the New York Times it would be
> > > > pointless and ignorant to complain about it in the Monteray News.
> > > > Posting corrections here means nothing. Send your corrections or
> > > > complaints to the editor/publisher/author of the article. This is not a
> > > > forum to correct anything.
> >
> > > Indeed? Then neither is it a forum to advertise anything. If you post
> > > an announcement about something here, you must accept feedback about it
> > > here.
>
> > Hey buddy, All I said was it was a neat new section.
> It's not -- it's a sloppy new section.
All I said was it was a neat new section. If you have a different
opinion you are entitled to it but it makes it no more valuable than
any others.
> > I guess you might
> > consider that an advertisement in the most liberal defination but I
> > don't. Feed back is fine. But to whine about corrections not being made
> > when you refuse to write to the publication is asinine.
> Chessville is Phil Innes' baby, not mine -- at least, last I heard,
> he still called himself their business manager.
Being a business manager is not the same as being an editor. Now if
you have some insight into the publishing business that I don't, please
enlighten me.
> If he prefers to let
> the site mislead readers, leaving known errors there as a monument to
> his own ignorance, indolence and stubbornness, who am I to say him nay?
Now, I demand that you prove what you have just stated.Do it within the
context of what you know to be true and proveable not simply conjecture
and assumptions. Do it based upon your knowledge of this thread and
this thread only. If you can't, I want to to either publically
appologize or simply never comment about anything that I post about
ever again.
Your above statement has nothing to do with the previous comment. If
you simply want to rant and rave and attack Phil Innes or me, then just
be direct about it and change the thread title to something like " My
name is Taylor and I hate Phil and Rob and want to demonstrate that I
am brilliant and they are not because I have an arrogant over inflated
sense of self worth" I realize that is a long title for a thread but I
am sure you can figure a way to shorten it..
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may
> >
> > enjoy.
> >
> > http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
> >
> > Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
>
>
> Rubinstein." While he did win some games against these three, overall
> he had a decidedly losing record against them, especially the first
> two: +2 -12 =11 vs. Lasker, +2 -22 =28 vs. Capablanca, and +9 -11
> =16 vs. Rubinstein. These are hardly the stats of a conqueror. It would
> have been more accurate to say something like "At various times
> Marshall won games against Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein and other
> greats of his day."
It is not incorrect. I am sure there is even an improvement over your
suggestion as well if one were trying to be completely precise..
> 2) "In 1904 [Marshall] won the Cambridge Springs event by 1.5
> points over Lasker; it was Lasker's first tournament defeat in ten
> years!" If by "tournament defeat" you mean that Lasker failed to
> take first place, the span of time involved was not ten years, but well
> less than nine. The Hastings tournament, where Lasker placed 3rd,
> finished on 2 September 1895, while Cambridge Springs ended 19 May
> 1904, making the time span 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days.
Again, it is not incorrect. 8 is nearly 10 given it's proximity to 10
and it's distance from 1.
It could be said more precisely but to do so would in no way alter or
improve what was written. I think it would render it more clinical and
less interesting to read.
> 3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
> his games exciting to watch." While a sense of fair play can make one
> an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
> exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
You ignored the word "and". It is obvious to me that waht the author
was saying was that Marshall was interesting to watch and to read about
because of his exciting play and his sense of fairness.(I think the
example was his acting as an advocate for Capablanca.)
Rob
Chess One
A compulsive abusive, sour loud-mouth out-of-work chess hack?
It is interesting to watch Kingston 'discuss' things with other people on
the "be in my club basis or I'll hit you with it".
MEANWHILE; BACK IN THE TRENCHES
All I see here is the difficulty of resolving 500-700 words of player
biograph to everyone's satisfaction at the first throw, which may not even
be possible - but at least there is a will to evolve it. I don't see any
resistance to making sensible amendments, but Kingston's are not sensible,
and if the original is diffident to sense, the rubuke is equally so!
One reason to create these /reader-supplied/ bios was the malicious
destruction of other work at Wikipedia for similar reasons. As readers can
see, personal preferences to wording are quite distinct from amending
established matters of fact - but the same negativity applies by taking some
very slight instance, or quibble, and trashing the whole thing.
If Kingston is such a paragon of correctness he might try his own submission
to the editor of the column, and instead of beggar the subject, demonstrate
the right way!
Vignettes is a good format for either brief life biographies, or anecdotes
about a player or an event. And there is much unrecorded material on
American players worthy of attention. What is unworthy of anyone's time is
to bitch over what are no more than personal foibles.
Certainly the hit-rate for such material is very good, players seem
genuinely interested in chess history, and I recommend anyone here having a
go at writing a bio or a few anecdotes about their favorite player. Several
thousand unique hits /per day/ are recorded and more people will read your
effort than ever read Chess Life, and your name will be appended [if you
wish] to your submission, plus links to more substantial reading should you
think it warranted.
I do not edit this column, but suggested it as a regular feature as well as
recruiting its editor, who will by these means recruit writing from the
chess public.
Mr. Kingston protests too much about what is good, and what can be better,
which is not to deny him his views, nor necessarily disagree with him. But
it is something like Winter's suggested chess writing; while we would agree
with his list, Winter himself is not about to do it. This fact recommends a
less acerbic stance from Winter, and from others deploying a similar
/modus/.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 16, 3:41 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in messagenews:1168965897....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Chessville is Phil Innes' baby, not mine -- at least, last I heard,
> > he still called himself their business manager. If he prefers to let
> > the site mislead readers, leaving known errors there as a monument to
> > his own ignorance, indolence and stubbornness, who am I to say him nay?
>
> A compulsive abusive, sour loud-mouth out-of-work chess hack?
"Out of work"? Heck, Phil, I've had a steady job with the same
company for over 25 years. Make very good money at it. That's one
reason my disposition is so sweet, except when it comes to suffering
fools, something I don't do gladly.
I wish you much joy with your Chess Gaffes.
Inconnux
This page states that A. Alekhine wrote articles on the supremacy of
Aryan chess vs Jewish 'defensive' chess. Was this the infamous
articles
produced for the nazis?
J.Lohner
ICC + Chessworld.net 'Inconnux'
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 16, 6:17 pm, "Inconnux" <everin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > > Additionally I found some interesting information concerning Tarrasch
> > > and Lasker and their opposing styles and methods of thinking. If you
> > > like I would be happy to include a link.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ybejof
>
> > > This page states that A. Alekhine wrote articles on the supremacy of
> Aryan chess vs Jewish 'defensive' chess. Was this the infamous
> articles produced for the nazis?
Yes. They appeared in six installments in the Pariser Zeitung, a
German-language newspaper published in Nazi-occupied Paris, in late
March 1941. They were subsequently reprinted in various other German
publications, and soon around the world.
Whether Alekhine himself actually wrote them, or just consented to
put his name to them, or had his name put to them without his consent,
remains a subject of research and controversy. For an examination of
this issue, I recommend Edward Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi"
at www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html . In any event,
they led to Alekhine being shunned like a leper by most of the chess
world after the war ended.
I don't know if the full text of the infamous articles is available
online. An English translation of them appeared in the book "The
Personality of Chess" by Horowitz and Rothenberg (McMillan Company, New
York, 1963).
In terms of content, the articles are of course rubbish concocted to
serve Nazi propaganda aims.
Inconnux
Inconnux
I just stated that it wasn't until I purchased
'My best games of chess 1908-1937 -
Alexander Alekhine Two volumes
bound as one' (Dover edition 1985)
that I ever knew that A.Alekhine denied
writing those articles. It is truely hard
to say whether he did or not. What would
any of us do if a tyranical government
held our wives? I certainly hope he didn't
write them, but articles aside he was a
true great and his games are enjoyable
to go over to this day.
BTW good article by mr Winter.
J.Lohner
'Inconnux'
Rob
Jason,
I think a very interesting position is on chess and philosophy. It is
an interesting contrast.
Rob
SBD
On Jan 16, 9:32 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> don't. Feed back is fine. But to whine about corrections not being made
> when you refuse to write to the publication is asinine.
Why? Is he required to do Chessville's homework now? Kingston is
respected well enough in chess history, and especially, in general
chess journalism, to NOT to want to lend his material or name to a
project that he sees as substandard.
Why don't you verify the accuracy of the information and post it
yourself? You have a dog in this fight, Taylor doesn't. He's just
pointing out that your dog is awful damn scrawny and unlikely to win.
Rob
SBD wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:32 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > don't. Feed back is fine. But to whine about corrections not being made
> > when you refuse to write to the publication is asinine.
>
>
.
>
> Why don't you verify the accuracy of the information and post it
> yourself? You have a dog in this fight, Taylor doesn't. He's just
> pointing out that your dog is awful damn scrawny and unlikely to win.
His Steve,
I was commenting on his statement that he had not seen any correction
to any material when he has not contacted anyone about it, so far as I
know. I was just pointing out how unreasonable it is to complain about
a change not occuring when you don't tell the publication. I don't
expect Taylor to correct anything for anyone. But it is not very
logical to expect that a change under those circumstances.
It would be similar to someone commenting about something you had
written in a publication and wrote about it somewhere where you had no
knowledge of it. Then complaining you didn't correct something.
Especially when all they would have had to do would have been to write
to the publication to bring it to your attention.
So, If he has a complaint or if he wants to correct or comment about
something;saying it here will do nothing to effect that.
Thanks,
Rob
Inconnux
> Jason,
> I think a very interesting position is on chess and philosophy. It is
> an interesting contrast.
> Rob
Yes but I do think its linking of talmudic studies and chess is really
stretching it. On the contrasts between lasker and tarrasch,
I personally prefer the games of E.Lasker because I find his
games far more 'creative'. I personally think Tarrasch's games
are boring but that is a personal taste.
Do people of Jewish decent excell at chess? sure why not...
Most of the Jewish people I know are very intelligent. But then
again I would say that as a race Russians have had the most
success :)
Rob
Inconnux wrote:
> > Jason,
> > I think a very interesting position is on chess and philosophy. It is
> > an interesting contrast.
> > Rob
> Yes but I do think its linking of talmudic studies and chess is really
> stretching it. On the contrasts between lasker and tarrasch,
> I personally prefer the games of E.Lasker because I find his
> games far more 'creative'. I personally think Tarrasch's games
> are boring but that is a personal taste.
I agree. I find it interesting to observe others opinions and their use
of logical linking. I cannot say there isn't a coorelation. I would
tend to take a more generalistic approach. Now I do believe that there
is a strong coorelation between mathematical ability and chess.
Rob
Chess One
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
discovery?
The PZ articles are rather strange, since they begin in usual fashion,
disparaging everything Jewish and are different only in that they are
less-crude than typical defamation materials, but they do address and
disparage 'Jewish Chess', but towards the end of the articles Alekhine
mentions players he knows by name, to except them from the general criticism
he made earlier - to the extent that a careful read seems to promote a
negative view of Jewish Chess which he then deflates by excepting actual
players he knows.
------
Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges in
the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure in
1979).
I think most of this translation was from Spanish and material written
mid-late 1943 to 1945.
He also thanks the ed of Brit Chess Magazine for permission of the famous
tribute to Capablanca preceding game 68 which ends; "...whose like we shall
never see again."
The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps also
notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
ethnicity.
-----
It has always seemed a more serious indictment of Alekhine to discuss the
circumstances of his visit to Poland. The Paris Zeitinger articles seem
damning on their face, but have a sting in the tail! It is interesting to
read them all and assess for yourself if you think Alekhine was taking
subtle revenge on any forced writing.
But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.
This Krakow reference is usually glossed in biographies and histories, and I
wonder if anyone knows more context or has read any published record of his
visit?
It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.
Phil Innes
"Inconnux" <ever...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168993296.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chess One
<...>
> I wish you much joy with your Chess Gaffes.
You don't suffer anything! And as usual you duck the challenge by declaring
yourself correct when your opinion is just a preference! When its your own
indolence and mistakes you are 'under-researched' no? Whether its Averbakh
or 100 best games, its never about you as if you were a human being like the
rest of us, your behavior is always excused from any critique.
Here below is what you cut, and you are marked for your cutting up chess
subjects, and snipe away in public while reserving your own genius for
Jesus? The challenge is not to be such a lordly hypocrite about chess
writing, as exampled by the majority of what your writing in public and
private, which is to denigrate other people's efforts.
The choice is to be like Winter, and expect much from others that he
can't deliver himself, or to actually make a /useful/ contribution, which is
more than public whining. If you can write well, do it, don't carp about
others. Chess players say 'show me'.
Phil Innes
---
MEANWHILE; BACK IN THE TRENCHES
All I see here is the difficulty of resolving 500-700 words of player
biograph to everyone's satisfaction at the first throw, which may not even
be possible - but at least there is a will to evolve it. I don't see any
resistance to making sensible amendments, but Kingston's are not sensible,
and if the original is diffident to sense, the rebuke is equally so!
Chess One
Kingston states he doesn't /want/ to correct anything by direct result of
his own actions, and says he only offers 'feedback', that the materials are,
in his view, correctible. This was the same reason that the Wikipedia chess
materials were trashed - no good means of correcting errors existed
independent of a destructive behavior on the part of critics.
What Kingston /really/ doesn't like is that /someone else/ thought of this
very good idea ;)
together with a means to make adjustments for necessary corrections and
amplifications.
I do not see him submitting any of his own material, or offering the editor
his, well... own assertions, though I expect he would support the fact that
there /is/ an editor to audit submissions and suggestions. I say I expect,
since I have not seen him affirm /this/ fact as being of value in his
writing here, in this thread that ge /he/ started, and where he has merely
sicklied over a most interesting project. That is his current contribution.
Put up or shut up, I say.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 17, 8:25 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
> version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
> his wife?
Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html )being posted in this
thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
apparently has not bothered to read it. If he had, he would know that
these alleged manuscripts in Alekhine's hand have never been shown to
the world. We have only the uncorroborated testimony of two people,
only one of whom is now living, that the manuscripts ever existed. And
their testimony has been rather inconsistent, as Winter points out:
"Brian Reilly, then the Editor of the BCM, had told them in 1956 that
he had just seen the articles. However, this is denied by Reilly, whose
eagerly-awaited biography of Alekhine will doubtless provide his
account of the matter. [Brian Reilly died in 1991, and his work on
Alekhine has not been published.]"
"In C.N. 1920 we ... commented: 'It is a pity that Mr Le Monnier
did not answer our straightforward point: if in 1958 he saw an article
in Alekhine's own hand, why, some 15 years later, did he write that
'it will never be known whether Alekhine was behind these articles
...'?"
It seems Le Monnier has never shown the manuscript he claims to
possess, and apparently (assuming it does exist) it will not be shown
until at least 2017, and then only if Alekhine's heirs consent.
> The PZ articles are rather strange, since they begin in usual fashion,
> disparaging everything Jewish and are different only in that they are
> less-crude than typical defamation materials, but they do address and
> disparage 'Jewish Chess', but towards the end of the articles Alekhine
> mentions players he knows by name, to except them from the general criticism
> he made earlier - to the extent that a careful read seems to promote a
> negative view of Jewish Chess which he then deflates by excepting actual
> players he knows.
Your reading of the articles differs from mine. It seems to me that
when they got to specific players, special effort was made to portray
them as examples of the despised "Jewish Chess," even when the player's
actual style did not fit the mold at all. For example, the #1 tenet of
"Jewish Chess" was supposedly "material gain at all costs." The
contortions employed to try to fit such sacrifice-oriented players as
Janowski, Mieses, and Spielmann, and such a master of attack as
Botvinnik, into this "materialistic" style, were truly ludicrous.
> It has always seemed a more serious indictment of Alekhine to discuss the
> circumstances of his visit to Poland. The Paris Zeitinger articles ...
Phil, please learn to spell. It's "Zeitung," which means newspaper in
German. I don't believe there is any such word as "Zeitinger" in German
-- at least neither my dictionary nor Babelfish show it. And the "er"
belongs at the end of Paris. "Pariser Zeitung" means "the newspaper of
Paris."
> But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different,
You are referring, I suppose, to the Third General Government
Tournament, 11-24 October 1942. That was held mainly in Warsaw and
Lublin. Just the last two of its eleven rounds were in Cracow.
> and even though he played
> Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
> AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
> dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck.
Frank.
> He also played in
> Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.
Not immediately. The Prague event ended 29 April 1943. Alekhine
played, and tied for for 1st with Keres, in a tournament at Salzburg
9-18 June. He did not get to Spain until October.
> This Krakow reference is usually glossed in biographies and histories, and I
> wonder if anyone knows more context or has read any published record of his
> visit?
There is a brief account on page 689 of "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven, but it mentions little about
Frank, mainly that he sponsored and helped organize the event, and
personally donated three "best game" prizes, two of which Alekhine won.
Of Alekhine's personal feelings about the Poland visit, little is
said, though there is this tentative but telling epilogue:
"The state of his health was another factor that may have been
responsible for his fluctuating form. At this time, some reports hint
that he was over indulging in alcohol and was very often in a depressed
state of mind. There are also suggestions that Alekhine's behaviour
away from the playing arena may have caused some problems." (p. 693)
> It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
> behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
> certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
> was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
> or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
> a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.
Indeed. My own guess, for what it's worth, is that the Poland visit
did increase AA's desire to leave Nazi-occupied Europe.
Chess One
>
>
> On Jan 17, 8:25 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
>> version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and
>> by
>> his wife?
>
> Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
> links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
> www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html )being posted in this
> thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
> that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
> apparently has not bothered to read it.
So many apparently comments already! Why does Kingston have to suppose so
poorly on behalf of other peoples writing, and cite the Winter as being some
source of resolution? I think Kingston knows very much indeed about chess,
but he doesn't understand much of what he knows.
Winter in fact does not decide if this material exists or not - and surely,
there it is unclear what motivation anyone would have for publishing it?
The same issue came up when Ken Whylde was investigating Alekhine, and while
Ken was impatient and a sort of conviction-historian, he neverthless
admitted to me that it was an uncertain business accessing or verifying
these documents - since there would be more reasons for family, eg, to
obscure them than to expose them.
> If he had, he would know that
> these alleged manuscripts in Alekhine's hand have never been shown to
> the world. We have only the uncorroborated testimony of two people,
> only one of whom is now living, that the manuscripts ever existed. And
> their testimony has been rather inconsistent, as Winter points out:
>
> "Brian Reilly, then the Editor of the BCM, had told them in 1956 that
> he had just seen the articles. However, this is denied by Reilly, whose
> eagerly-awaited biography of Alekhine will doubtless provide his
> account of the matter. [Brian Reilly died in 1991, and his work on
> Alekhine has not been published.]"
Exactly the same fate and circumstance be-falling Whylde.
> "In C.N. 1920 we ... commented: 'It is a pity that Mr Le Monnier
> did not answer our straightforward point: if in 1958 he saw an article
> in Alekhine's own hand, why, some 15 years later, did he write that
> 'it will never be known whether Alekhine was behind these articles
> ...'?"
>
> It seems
Does it? All that 'seems' from the above is that there is no proof that is
publicly available.
> Le Monnier has never shown the manuscript he claims to
> possess, and apparently (assuming it does exist) it will not be shown
> until at least 2017, and then only if Alekhine's heirs consent.
Quite. Which is why I wrote with so many question marks in the header of
this thread. What for me is a question, is for Kingston something certain.
>> The PZ articles are rather strange, since they begin in usual fashion,
>> disparaging everything Jewish and are different only in that they are
>> less-crude than typical defamation materials, but they do address and
>> disparage 'Jewish Chess', but towards the end of the articles Alekhine
>> mentions players he knows by name, to except them from the general
>> criticism
>> he made earlier - to the extent that a careful read seems to promote a
>> negative view of Jewish Chess which he then deflates by excepting actual
>> players he knows.
>
> Your reading of the articles differs from mine.
I bet it does. Then again your reading of Gulko's refusenik status differs
from mine, since I don't mind mentioning a bit of official jew-beating from
the soviets, and don't understand why the Oxford should gloss it. That, at
least, is no guess nor theory.
> It seems to me that
> when they got to specific players, special effort was made to portray
> them as examples of the despised "Jewish Chess," even when the player's
> actual style did not fit the mold at all. For example, the #1 tenet of
> "Jewish Chess" was supposedly "material gain at all costs." The
> contortions employed to try to fit such sacrifice-oriented players as
> Janowski, Mieses, and Spielmann, and such a master of attack as
> Botvinnik, into this "materialistic" style, were truly ludicrous.
And if anyone had read Alekhine's own writing, how uncharacteristic of him
to appear 'ludicrous' - he is most exactingly acute. Kingston - and to be
fair, is quizzing a questionable issue - though concludes that in his
reading there is not heavy irony in presenting a racial thesis, and them
illustrating it by 'ludicrous' example. <shrug>
>> It has always seemed a more serious indictment of Alekhine to discuss the
>> circumstances of his visit to Poland. The Paris Zeitinger articles ...
>
> Phil, please learn to spell. It's "Zeitung," which means newspaper in
> German. I don't believe there is any such word as "Zeitinger" in German
> -- at least neither my dictionary nor Babelfish show it. And the "er"
> belongs at the end of Paris. "Pariser Zeitung" means "the newspaper of
> Paris."
>
>> But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different,
>
> You are referring, I suppose, to the Third General Government
> Tournament, 11-24 October 1942. That was held mainly in Warsaw and
> Lublin. Just the last two of its eleven rounds were in Cracow.
>
>> and even though he played
>> Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
>> AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
>> dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck.
>
> Frank.
How is it possible to read all that and comment on German spellings alone?
Which BTW I have seen spelled Franck.
>> He also played in
>> Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.
>
> Not immediately. The Prague event ended 29 April 1943. Alekhine
> played, and tied for for 1st with Keres, in a tournament at Salzburg
> 9-18 June. He did not get to Spain until October.
>
>> This Krakow reference is usually glossed in biographies and histories,
>> and I
>> wonder if anyone knows more context or has read any published record of
>> his
>> visit?
>
> There is a brief account on page 689 of "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
> Games 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven, but it mentions little about
> Frank, mainly that he sponsored and helped organize the event, and
> personally donated three "best game" prizes, two of which Alekhine won.
It doesn't mention between the rounds he was hanging the population from
telegraph poles, and getting the rest into KZs. That is brief mention.
> Of Alekhine's personal feelings about the Poland visit, little is
> said, though there is this tentative but telling epilogue:
>
> "The state of his health was another factor that may have been
> responsible for his fluctuating form. At this time, some reports hint
> that he was over indulging in alcohol and was very often in a depressed
> state of mind. There are also suggestions that Alekhine's behaviour
> away from the playing arena may have caused some problems." (p. 693)
Euphemism. But this is not quite to grasp the nettle of what I wrote and
knowledge of the barbarity then occuring in Poland, and why AA should
actually play a few games with 'the butcher' in the evenings.
>> It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis
>> were
>> behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
>> certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow
>> visit
>> was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied
>> zones,
>> or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess,
>> is
>> a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.
>
> Indeed. My own guess, for what it's worth, is that the Poland visit
> did increase AA's desire to leave Nazi-occupied Europe.
I have written with a few people who have investigated these issues - either
from the p.o.v. of writing chess histories, or biographical material. It is
necessary for any Life to appreciate both the light and the dark of such a
character, and for many people imagination fails completely, both of the
dynamics of the man, and the life of his times.
Phil Innes
David Richerby
> On Jan 17, 8:25 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The Paris Zeitinger articles ...
>
> Phil, please learn to spell. It's "Zeitung," which means newspaper
> in German. I don't believe there is any such word as "Zeitinger" in
> German -- at least neither my dictionary nor Babelfish show it. And
> the "er" belongs at the end of Paris. "Pariser Zeitung" means "the
> newspaper of Paris."
Your knowledge of German is irrelevant, here. As everybody but you
seems to know, the _Paris Zeitinger_ is an Andean-language newspaper.
This is proved by Google, which gives 424 hits for `Paris Zeitinger'.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Evil Expensive Monk (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a man of God but it'll break the bank
and it's genuinely evil!
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 17, 10:31 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrotein
>>
> > Our Phil, as usual, shows himself not very well informed. Despite
> > links to Winter's article "Was Alekhine a Nazi?" (
> >www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html) being posted in this
> > thread now, and several other times in the past, and despite the fact
> > that the first version of the article appeared back in 1989, Innes
> > apparently has not bothered to read it.
>
> Winter in fact does not decide if this material exists or not ...
Exactly my point, Phil. That's why I presented Winter's article in
answer to *_your_* saying "wasn't a version in his own hand found at
his home? In fact under his own bed, and by his wife?"
We have no tangible evidence of this, just the unverified and
inconsistent testimony of two people. Your question indicated you did
not know this. I thought you might like to be enlightened.
Inconnux
Chess One wrote:
> The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
> version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and by
> his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
> discovery?
>
Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
do if our wives were being threatened.
> Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
> 1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges in
> the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
> obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure in
> 1979).
>
No this is a seperate book by dover. My book contains about 200 games
> The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps also
> notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
> above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
> ethnicity.
I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange. Yes
there
are 'school' of playing (ie russian) but to group a widespread ethnic
group
such as Jewish people are is just rediculous.
> But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he played
> Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
> AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
> dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
> Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.
Did he know him as a butcher? Still even though he might have had
some inclination of this, if such a person wanted to play him a game
I doubt he could have refused.
> It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis were
> behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
> certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow visit
> was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied zones,
> or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess, is
> a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.
perhaps he was just trying to live his life as normally as possible.
He went
to this tournament because it was there. Many people in wartimes try
to
do this.
In my edition of Alexander Alekhines best games of chess. The forward
to
the 'second book' is done by J.Du Mont. who
makes the claim that Alekhine denied writing those
articles.
Rob
I think this is a very good point. When one is trapped in unfriendly
territory you may be obliged to modify your ethics to fit the situation
in order to stay alive.Based upon his style of play I would hazard a
guess that he surmized that to simply allow the NAZI's this bit of
propaganda would hurt noone. It is not as if Alekhine was participating
in or condoning the elimination of a race, so far as I know. If he did
do that then I would have no sympathy for his position.
Rob
Chess One
My question referred to my and Winter's doubt of this. Why Kingston once
again make suppositions and issue certainties on what even his hero says is
unexplained? Sure - a bit of quick celebrity, lacking any research his own
or new knowledge that helps determine it.
And its not your point - its my point, or question, since I raised it here.
If it is so sure for you, surer than Winter's question, by all means
enlighten us further. My question raised the issue of how we know what we
know - a common subject with real researchers. Do you in fact know more than
Winter? You consistently cut the content of these materials, even to the
extent of not acknowledging that there would be a reason to withhold them!
What a farce you make of every inquiry - how petty you have become - ever
since the dreadful face-slap by Evans for the same argumentative process,
also lacking any means or true curiosity to resolve the issue. What don't
you team up with Richerby who shares your ignorance of Andean Spanish, and
blame that too on someone else?
You are an hysteric, man! But if you want to consistently cut these comments
for entertainment value, then clown away! Many people will be impressed!
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 17, 2:55 pm, "Inconnux" <everin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
> do if our wives were being threatened.
A very apt question. Assuming Alekhine did write the articles in
question, or knowingly let his name be given to them, we have no idea
what penalty the Nazis may have threatened or reward they offered. It
would have been very difficult to resist, and Alekhine does not impress
me as the martyr type.
A fictional parallel may be the character Aaron Jastrow from Herman
Wouk's novel "War and Remembrance." He was played by Sir John Gielgud
in the 1988 TV adaptation. The Nazis kept trying to persuade and/or
coerce Jastrow, a widely respected and internationally famous Jewish
scholar, to write articles serving German propaganda aims. He resisted,
and ultimately died in an Auschwitz gas chamber. Perhaps Alekhine faced
a similar choice.
On the other hand, Alekhine may not have required much persuading. I
recall reading (forgive me, I can't recall where) that the
Franco-Polish GM (and Jew) Savielly Tartakower, who knew Alekhine well,
commented after WW II that Alekhine's anti-Semitism had been a matter
of common knowledge, at least among the chess community, for decades.
If I recall correctly, he considered it somewhat hypocritical and
opportunistic that the chess world shunned him only after his WW II
collaboration.
> I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange.
Nazi ideology is indeed very strange. They even tried to claim that
there was a "Jewish physics," as if somehow the laws of nature were
different depending on the ethnicity of the observer.
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
>> version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and
>> by
>> his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
>> discovery?
>>
>
> Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
> do if our wives were being threatened.
Yes - though this too is surmise. Was she?
>> Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
>> 1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges
>> in
>> the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
>> obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure
>> in
>> 1979).
>>
>
> No this is a seperate book by dover. My book contains about 200 games
>
>> The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps
>> also
>> notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
>> above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
>> ethnicity.
>
> I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange. Yes
> there
> are 'school' of playing (ie russian) but to group a widespread ethnic
> group
> such as Jewish people are is just rediculous.
Yes - some time ago [6 years?] someone wrote to me about a bad Alekhine
joke - he was returning to his hotel late, and probably pretty oiled - and
he banged on the door of a fellow player, a jewish person and said loudly '
ve vill come for you in ze morning!'
and when told that this player didn't sleep at all, was then truly upset at
his joke, apologised
sometimes this is the way it is between ideas and actual feelings - even if
the idea in this case was merely that of a drunk
>> But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he
>> played
>> Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
>> AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
>> dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
>> Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.
>
> Did he know him as a butcher?
Well, this is the question.
> Still even though he might have had
> some inclination of this, if such a person wanted to play him a game
> I doubt he could have refused.
hm
>> It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis
>> were
>> behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
>> certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow
>> visit
>> was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied
>> zones,
>> or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess,
>> is
>> a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.
>
> perhaps he was just trying to live his life as normally as possible.
> He went
> to this tournament because it was there. Many people in wartimes try
> to
> do this.
yes - it is tempting to want to 'save' him, no? but who knows how he was,
and even if he was as some say, rather indifferent to any sort of society,
and it made little idfference to him [other than as intellectual exercise]
what he said on social issues?
> In my edition of Alexander Alekhines best games of chess. The forward
> to
> the 'second book' is done by J.Du Mont. who
> makes the claim that Alekhine denied writing those
> articles.
he did not deny them very vehemently
btw; there is a bbc radio recording from the late 30's which has just been
uncovered with a brief interview with him - unexpectedly maybe, his voice is
high, and a bit squeeky - i thought this was the fault of the recording
having no bass, but his interviewer [unknown person] sounded normal.
phil
Inconnux
> On the other hand, Alekhine may not have required much persuading. I
> recall reading (forgive me, I can't recall where) that the
> Franco-Polish GM (and Jew) Savielly Tartakower, who knew Alekhine well,
> commented after WW II that Alekhine's anti-Semitism had been a matter
> of common knowledge, at least among the chess community, for decades.
> If I recall correctly, he considered it somewhat hypocritical and
> opportunistic that the chess world shunned him only after his WW II
> collaboration.
Thats interesting because A.Alekhine wanted a practice match
against dr. Tartakower before his match in england against
M.Botvinnik. I have to wonder why he would chose a 'jew' if
he truely authored those letters.
I guess that I try to believe the best of people until it is
proven to me that they are guilty. I have
absolutely No respect for Fischer is he has proven
what an idiot he is. Alekhine situation seems to be
unproven.
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 18, 12:40 am, "Inconnux" <everin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd say the case against him is very strong, and he provided the main
evidence himself. While the alledgedly recovered manuscripts have not
been shown to the world, Alekhine seems to have admitted his authorship
in interviews given to two Madrid publications in September 1941, i.e.
about six months after the Pariser Zeitung articles appeared. I quote
again from the Winter article at
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html, with the key
portions emphasized:
"El Alcázar reported: 'He [Alekhine] added that in the German
magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung and the German daily Pariser Zeitung,
currently published in Paris, he had been the first to deal with chess
from THE RACIAL POINT OF VIEW.'"
"Alekhine told Valentín González of Informaciones about his
intention to give lectures 'about the evolution of chess thought in
recent times and the reasons for this evolution. There would also be A
STUDY OF THE ARYAN AND JEWISH KINDS OF CHESS.' Moreover, Alekhine was
quoted as saying that he was not in favour in the United States and
England 'as a result of SOME ARTICLES I WROTE IN THE GERMAN PRESS
...' When asked which players he most admired Alekhine's published
reply was: '... I must stress the greatest glory of Capablanca, which
was to ELIMINATE THE JEW LASKER from the world chess throne.'
If by "some articles I wrote in the German press" AA is referring to
something besides the PZ Aryan chess articles, it's hard to imagine
what, especially considering his surrounding comments. Whether or not
he wrote for PZ under duress, he seems to be freely, even proudly,
claiming authorship here.
Rob
Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> "El Alcázar reported: 'He [Alekhine] added that in the German
> magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung and the German daily Pariser Zeitung,
> currently published in Paris, he had been the first to deal with chess
> from THE RACIAL POINT OF VIEW.'"
>
> "Alekhine told Valentín González of Informaciones about his
> intention to give lectures 'about the evolution of chess thought in
> recent times and the reasons for this evolution. There would also be A
> STUDY OF THE ARYAN AND JEWISH KINDS OF CHESS.' Moreover, Alekhine was
> quoted as saying that he was not in favour in the United States and
> England 'as a result of SOME ARTICLES I WROTE IN THE GERMAN PRESS
> ...' When asked which players he most admired Alekhine's published
> reply was: '... I must stress the greatest glory of Capablanca, which
> was to ELIMINATE THE JEW LASKER from the world chess throne.'
>
> If by "some articles I wrote in the German press" AA is referring to
> something besides the PZ Aryan chess articles, it's hard to imagine
> what, especially considering his surrounding comments. Whether or not
> he wrote for PZ under duress, he seems to be freely, even proudly,
> claiming authorship here.
People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.
As with anything, context is crucial Had he voiced such feelings openly
while in the UK or in America,they would have been,IMHO, conclusivly
damning.
Rob
Chess One
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169133411....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Taylor Kingston wrote:
<.>
> If by "some articles I wrote in the German press" AA is referring to
> something besides the PZ Aryan chess articles, it's hard to imagine
> what, especially considering his surrounding comments. Whether or not
> he wrote for PZ under duress, he seems to be freely, even proudly,
> claiming authorship here.
People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.
---
There were 106 Abwehr agents in Madrid compared to 6 OSS agents. There were
indeed assassinations. Removing himself to Lisbon hardly improved his
situation since the primary Japanese listening post into Europe was located
there, and again, assassinations were not uncommon. Though why he /should/
be assassinated is not known. Its amusing to read stories speculating on
Alekhine's death, including that he really was assassinated [shot outside
his room]. An article in NiC mentioned a few aspect of this, including that
Fred Friedel apparently believes it, plus an alas, an unnamed Frenchman who
attested it.
Incidentally, here is the audio clip of Alekhine:
http://www.bobby-fischer.net/AlekineInterview.html if anyone can identify
the interviewer from his voice, bbc would like to know.
As with anything, context is crucial Had he voiced such feelings openly
while in the UK or in America,they would have been,IMHO, conclusivly
damning.
---
Well, it /was/ reported in the British Press at the time, and by all
accounts after the war there was resentment by top-players to Alekhine's
reintroduction to the chess scene, based on London paper's reporting of it.
Max Euwe eventually decided the issue by, remarkably, voting for AA to be
readmitted, saying, "humanity is the best revenge."
But more generally there was a considerable amount of open anti-semitism in
France at the time, and even after the war too! But there was also covert
anti-semitism in England, with clubs attended by people of some status who
should be ashamed of themselves, which operated long-after the war with
no-jews policies.
Rob
help bot
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may
> >
> > enjoy.
> >
> > http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
> >
> > Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
>
> A few things in the Frank Marshall article strike me as odd:
>
> 1) Marhalll is described as "conqueror of Lasker, Capablanca,
> Rubinstein." While he did win some games against these three, overall
> he had a decidedly losing record against them, especially the first
> two: +2 -12 =11 vs. Lasker, +2 -22 =28 vs. Capablanca, and +9 -11
> =16 vs. Rubinstein. These are hardly the stats of a conqueror. It would
> have been more accurate to say something like "At various times
> Marshall won games against Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein and other
> greats of his day."
>
> 2) "In 1904 [Marshall] won the Cambridge Springs event by 1.5
> points over Lasker; it was Lasker's first tournament defeat in ten
> years!" If by "tournament defeat" you mean that Lasker failed to
> take first place, the span of time involved was not ten years, but well
> less than nine. The Hastings tournament, where Lasker placed 3rd,
> finished on 2 September 1895, while Cambridge Springs ended 19 May
> 1904, making the time span 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days.
>
> 3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
> his games exciting to watch." While a sense of fair play can make one
> an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
> exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
time controls back then. I have often read complaints about certain
players, who basically refused to lose via practically refusing to move
after running into trouble on the board. Such players may be regarded
as unsportsmanlike, even if the tournament rules technically allowed
for unlimited thinking time per move. The same principle applies
today,
for skittles games.
-- help bot
help bot
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> 7) Of Kashdan's Olympic record, the article says "He won two
> gold, one silver, one bronze, individual medals and one fourth place
> overall finish." This is wording is a bit awkward and creates some
> confusion
Doctor -- heal thyself!
Another slip was the misspelling of Frank Marshall's last name,
as something like -- wait for it -- "Marsalll"! That's right, a triple
L,
and some other letter missing altogether.
And for the record, although "Dr." Alekhine may have finished
ahead of me at San Remo, it was only by the teensy-weensy
margin of fifteen points (hardly even worth mentioning, really).
I say that tournament shouldn't count; clearly, there was some
sort of computer program cheating going on (I think he must
have had Rybka 2.0).
-- last-place bot
help bot
Rob wrote:
> > What a bizarre statement. Your ability to mishandle logic is truly
> > dazzling.
>
> Thank You.
Don't get a big head; there are plenty of others around here who can
compete on fully equal terms. Not the least of which would be your
friend, IM Innes.
> > > It has been
> > > interesting to watch your personality and disposition change online
> > > over the last two years Taylor. You have become a much harsher and less
> > > tolerant and helpful person.
Quite an accomplishment, considering how brief a timespan. Now,
projecting forward: what do you see coming *next*?
> > Rob, I will be blunt. You might consider that your behavior here --
> > including (but not limited to) obtuseness, refusal to accept facts,
> > glaring logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, and a tendency to
> > meddle in matters of which by your own admission you are totally
> > ignorant -- rather quickly exhaust one's store of tolerance. And your
> > persistence in these tendencies indicates that help is wasted on you.
>
> Taylor, I will also be blunt. you have a particularly annoying tendancy
> to become obtuse and abrasive over small points of syntax.
That's "tendency", you nitwit. And who are you calling abrasive,
muddlehead? Look, TK has this stack of books, writ by experts.
Now who are you gonna believe, them, or some guy who can't
remember who played in what tourney, or who conquered all the
greats? I say it's obvious. You take Sam Remo, for instance. In
1930 -- right after the end of WWII -- he went and took clear first
at the Alekhine tourney, ahead of Nesmowitch. Everybody knows
this -- it's kids stuff. Just give it up -- you're beaten, Mr.
Michell.
I always gnue that me an' Edward Winter wood win out in the end.
But I never expected TK to be their two.
-- expert bot
help bot
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:56 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
> > information is more factually accurate.
>
> This is rather like saying "Any kind of restaurant is useful. It is
> helpful if they actually serve edible food."
Nonsense. Even complete chess fiction -- like say, Larry Parr's
stuff -- can serve as interesting material to the uninitiated, perhaps
even drawing them in so they can eventually learn about real chess
events as they actually occurred.
> > Where is disagree is in
> > claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
> > something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil.
>
> Rob, I would have hoped that since I just pointed out your habitual
> tendency toward the straw-man fallacy, you would have the good sense to
> avoid it. Have I (or anyone) said the of sort factual error seen in
> "Chessville Vignettes" is "evil"? No. But it is error.
Hair splitter. You implied it was bad, and bad resembles evil,
does it not?
> > And if it
> > makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
> > subject, then it's a good thing.
>
> Are you seriously trying to claim that error is just as good as fact
> if it inspires interest? I hope not. Sounds like the sort of argument
> the supermarket tabloids would make, that unfounded gossip about movie
> stars is better than truth because more people like to read it.
Not better, just more appealing to the common folk.
I recently watched an old classic movie in black and white.
They referred to the radio as "the wireless", and when a very
boring program came on, the star turned it off. Now, that
boring program was probably chock full of factual material,
but he found it unappetizing, all the same.
> > As I see it, the currentchess [sic]
See what RM meant? Any fool can see a space was omitted,
but the hair splitter insists on treating this missing character
as though it were a *major issue*. It wouldn't surprise me if
TK and Louis Blair keep tabs on the exact percentage of
typos and misspelled words for each poster here. (Say, could
you use this info to determine who is the REAL fake Sam Sloan?)
> > literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
> > general public.
>
> Rob, having read countless chess books of all types over a span of
> more than 40 years,
Never trust anyone over thirty!
> and having reviewed over 120 books for
> ChessCafe.com, I think in all humility
(cackles uncontrollably)
> I may reasonably suggest that I
> know a bit more about "currentchess literature" than you or the average
> bear.
Okay, Yogi. You gonna get us another pic-i-nick basket, Yogi?
I'm getting hungry. -- Boo-boo
> I also submit that you are again displaying your not
> inconsiderable ignorance.
Um, simpler was... considerable ignorance, without the "not".
> > If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
> > direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts.
>
> Babelfish again fails me on this.
One day you may learn to think for yourself, instead of
always relying on someone else -- like this babblefish of
yours -- to do it for you. Here is the correct translation,
which of course you would have been able to do by yourself
if you had an IQ as high as, say, Jason Repa, or a hundred
other rgc posters (going by what they claim):
>If chess is to grow, then historians and authors should
direct their efforts toward the general public.<
[Compare and contrast this to the infighting and backbiting
which seems to be the main interest at present.]
> > Otherwise
> > we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
> > of colorful engaging novels.
My friend, you are a prime candidate for Larry Parr's next
fiction novel: "How Bobby Fischer Crushed the Soviet Empire,
smashed their evil regime, and broke the inpenetrable 2700 barrier",
volume six.
> "Engaging novels"?? So you admit that you want to promote fiction
> rather than fact? As far as "boring, dry colorless texbooks" are
> concerned, you once again demonstrate a staggering ignorance of recent
> chess literature. You also seem totally unaware of the strong recent
> surge in general-interest chess books. And to think that "Chess
> Vignettes" is contributing to that trend is like a child thinking its
> bathtub waves have augmented a Pacific Ocean tsunami.
Give me a lever long enough, and I can move the world!
> Rob, to paraphrase Churchill, seldom has someone so uninformed made
> such sweeping claims based on so little knowledge. I strongly advise
> you to refrain from posting on rgc until you learn at least to
> differentiate the distal end of the humerus from the gluteus maximus.
Again, the pompous attitude rears its ugly head. I see this same
nastiness in the postings of Jason Repa, who BTW also seems to
think no one but himself ought to post here!
-- help bot
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 19, 5:24 am, "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > 3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
> > > his games exciting to watch."
> >
> > While a sense of fair play can make one
> > an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
> > exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
>
> Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
> the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
> time controls back then.
By the time Marshall broke into the upper ranks of chess (late 1890s
- early 1900s), the use of clocks had been standard practice in major
tournaments for twenty or thirty years.
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169204765.9...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Taylor, I will also be blunt. you have a particularly annoying tendancy
>> to become obtuse and abrasive over small points of syntax.
>
> That's "tendency", you nitwit.
Since this is pulling-your-leg week, I suggest 'tendoncy'.
> And who are you calling abrasive,
> muddlehead? Look, TK has this stack of books, writ by experts.
> Now who are you gonna believe, them, or some guy who can't
> remember who played in what tourney, or who conquered all the
> greats? I say it's obvious.
Snot! 'Seni ful no. Even if'n you have stuff, do you /know/ stuff, and if'n
you know stuff, do you /understand/ stuff? (See my game against Duras). But
that's not the real point, or blunt, which is that one perspective solves
all - and as a visual metaphor this is absurd. Imagine looking at a certain
person's legs under the table, eg, and you ask one person what they see, and
they answer;
"Patela."
Then you ask 'nother person who is crouching behind the person being looked
at, what they see, and they reply:-
"Back of her knee, init?"
Which is true? Philosophically in logic, chosing only one answer is called
'the pathetic fallacy', which has a long name in German, longer than the
Eiger Tunnelll, and which you Murcans call 'doh!' a termed originally coined
by a sausage-smelling bloke from old Yurp, who once dropped his bread from
the table and when going to pick it up noticed these knees, intrigued, he
then crawled unobserved under the table to see what was on the other side.
It was amazing he had to mention it at all, but people had pretended there
was only one side to things - just to keep it simple, anticipating one of
the poorer Australian contributions to ideas world culture.
They seemed to say that if you walked around to the other side it would be
just the same as the side you had just looked at. As if they thought people
had two kneecaps! When asked how they 'know' that, they said it was obvious,
you nitwit!
The true answer is not a, and not b, but at least a and b. You may have
noticed how old Yurp had some considerable difficulties in enculturating
this idea, causing millions of lives to be spent and misspent, absent a
necessary admission of plurality. You know, blokes get into power, confuse
that with wisdom, fairness, and a liking for chili-dogs, and send off the
gunboats. Other people say this is marvellous as long as we are winning!
Some Italian bloke named Da Macky Velcro wrote it up like it was the gear to
do and princes went right ahead and did done it. <-- extract from; Histry of
Yurp part deux, copyright 2012
And this is why John Adams wrote of an empire of laws, not an empire of men,
and this was the very great significance of the declaration of independence,
since for the founders it wassna just creating another country, but a
country founded on another basis entirely. It was the world's country.
But I digress.
Why not actually write something for Vignettes, and 'get a leg up' on other
people who say they could, but don't. Why 'carp' at home when you could go
real fishin'?
Not necessary to choose Alekhine who is a tad complicated and needs serial
treatment [idea!] but how about a very neglected subject of attention, the
chessic auteur Koltanowski? BTW, I have his 'Practical Play of the Max
Lange' and have been waiting 200 games to play it, but opponents are proving
difficult, and I am forced into better positions.
Anyway, don't cry for me, Netbotina.
> You take Sam Remo, for instance.
Any relation to Sam Spade, he also got took, falcons wunnit?
> In
> 1930 -- right after the end of WWII -- he went and took clear first
> at the Alekhine tourney,
I think you may be in error and have inadvertently referred to the
boar-waugh, as we Yurps say. There is a famous movie about it with a chess
position as central feature. The defence of Rook's Drift, with Mikul Kaine!
Who almost singlehandedly fights off 17,000 Zulu. <-- extract from; Histry
of non-Yurp part twa, copyright 2013
> ahead of Nesmowitch.
In Yurp we say 'Neumannwich', w. mstd, hld mayo, + side of fries.
> Everybody knows
> this -- it's kids stuff. Just give it up -- you're beaten, Mr.
> Michell.
Another small error, I believe it is now spelled 'Mitchelll'. I hope we are
not witnessing more 'l' envy, by people with no l's in their name? There was
an English bloke who had it so strong but couldn't speak up for himself
everyone thought he was suffering from cowardice.
No el, coward! They shouted at him in the street.
> I always gnue that me an' Edward Winter wood win out in the end.
> But I never expected TK to be their two.
You befell Spectationism as mentioned by Vergel and stolen by Tacitus, who,
when he wasn't hanging out in the 'dirty-quarter' of the old city, which
wasn't very often, he would put on a clean sheet to go up to the forum to
declaim on the wisdom of those who only look.
"Veni", he would begin, then "willi nili Vichi" [while singing a few lines
from the gallic-song, La Mayoneaise], and finally of all, Vincit Amor Vine,
which altogether has a meaning, "Lookit, will you! Never mind drinking this
maiden's water, let's all get skunked!"
This is real histrionic research, the quality of vich ve hold to be or not
to be self-evident!
Cardigans, Philll Innes.
> -- expert bot
small suggestions, 'blot', 'blotto' ?
Rob
Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may
enjoy.
http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
Is there a new one coming?
help bot
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > > 3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
> > > > his games exciting to watch."
> > >
> > > While a sense of fair play can make one
> > > an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
> > > exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.
> >
> > Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
> > the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
> > time controls back then.
>
> By the time Marshall broke into the upper ranks of chess (late 1890s
> - early 1900s), the use of clocks had been standard practice in major
> tournaments for twenty or thirty years.
What part of "made his games exciting to watch" in any way implies
*only* his tournament games? Silly TK; the vast majority of chess
games played back then were not part of official tournaments, but what
would now be called skittles.
Even today, it could be considered insulting to insist on use of a
clock
for such games; the (albeit vague) implication being that the opponent
cannot be trusted to act like a gentleman should -- moving within a
reasonable period of time.
IMO, what the writer likely meant was that Frank Marshall's games
progressed at a reasonable pace, and just as important from the
perspective of spectators, they were not dull, lifeless affairs like
say,
many of Nimzowitch's 100+-movers.
Years ago, Gary Kasparov published a book of his own games --
before his gigantic ego went mad as a hatter. The title was "Fighting
Chess, my games and career", or something similar. He prided himself
on having a "fighting" style, and why is this particular style so
desired?
It must be on account of its peculiar effect on the spectators, for
otherwise a dull technical affair scores the same as a spectacular
slugfest. Add to this the common knowledge that many -- if not most --
of these slugfests are seriously flawed, while a dry technical
exploitation
of some minute advantage may well be superior, from the perspective of
the connoisseur.
-- help bot
Rob
You may not call yourself "smart bot" :-)
Maybe bot will send in something to Vignettes as well? I am anxious to
read the next reader submission.
Rob
help bot
Rob wrote:
> > -- help bot
>
> You may not call yourself "smart bot" :-)
Compared to Jason Repa, even a grapefruit might appear to be quite
smart!
> Maybe bot will send in something to Vignettes as well?
Nah, here I am in agreement with Taylor Kingston that such material
is best left to the experts. For one thing, this way you are able to
save
a whole step in the process (the one where a multitude of factual
errors
are later corrected by people who actually have some real facts).
Saving
steps means less work, and I am all for that.
However, I would be willing to check over (as if Fritz could not do
this
a thousand times better) any chess analysis for obvious blunders, such
as the one in which GM Soltis -- after bragging that he took great care
in
compiling one book of chess games -- overlooked a simple capture of a
free Rook by the deeply hidden: "pxR -- duh!"
I get a lot of emails these days, and it seems to me that were I
given
just *five minutes* to look over any one of them, I could easily spot
most
of the errors and correct them before they are sent out to *thousands*
of
recipients. Yet it always seems to be the case that these writers have
LARGE egos, and cannot recognize the need for any improvement in their
wares whatever. In fact, many of these newsletters, as I shall call
them,
contradict one another as to the facts, or at the very least, take the
same
set of facts and from them draw opposing positions which their writers
cling to like a fish to water.
Hey, if Tinker Taylor gets to call himself smarter than the average
bear,
then why can't I call myself smart bot? Who's higher-rated at GetClub,
me or him? Who just made the egregious error (ooooh, it feels so good
to be able to use that word in this particular context) of wrongly
assuming
that a writer must have meant only Frank Marshall's *tournament* games?
Who "overlooked" pxR, me or him? Whose horrid oversight was spotted
by that obnoxious GM, Ray Keene? Who miscalculated his correspondence
rating as "2300+" -- missing by at least 2%, me or him? Obviously,
when
you can answer these questions, it will become cristal cleer which of
us to
has earned the right to call himself smartt.
-- help bot
help bot
Chess One wrote:
> People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
> to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
> way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
> his safety.
Well, there really was no need for Alekhine -- or anyone else, for
that
matter -- to bash the Jews in chess. Just look at their results
objectively:
countless second places, third places, and often even lower. Yes, the
Jews really had no talent whatever for the game, and it is obvious that
the Aryan superiority lay in a superior, attacking style of play, in
contrast
to the horrid, defensive ugliness of say, a GM Lasker -- whose lame
results
speak for themselves. The same holds true half a century later, as can
be seen in the mediocre results of GM Fischer and GM Kasparov, for
instance. If anything, Alekhine should be criticized for being too
easy
on the Jews, too laid-back in his assessments of the myriad defects in
their play -- which time and space forbid me from delving into here.
Suffice it to say that any second-rate Aryan with the least experience
in chess would easily wipe GM Fischer off the board today -- were he
not
such a coward, afraid to even play. Deep Purple* -- the latest in a
long
line of superior, Aryan-programmed chess computers -- awaits any and
all Jewish challengers who may wish to make the mistake of going up
against the superior race.
-- Eine bot
Deep Purple's specs. --
1028 parallel processors, each of which has:
256 GB memory
2,000 GHz
All 7-man or less endgames stored in tablebases
A hot-phone direct line to GM Fischer in Iceland, if stumped
128 volume ECO accessible in 0.0008 milliseconds, avg. seek time
Remote control access to the room lights (and fire alarm, in case of
serious trouble)
Quadruple backup failsafe power supply, uninterruptable
Another direct line to President Bush, who is empowered to annul any
game where the program detects a mate-in-twenty coming via its
brute-force tactical "quick-check" feature. This feature, like many
others, was developed and perfected by the superior, Aryan race, and
as you might imagine, makes the program *very* difficult to beat by
circumventing checkmates for the inferior races, and only allowing
those by "true Aryans" as determined by a retinal scan, cross
referenced
to a massive database (and you thought GM Fischer's demands were
tough!).
-- smart bot
Sanny
> bear,
> then why can't I call myself smart bot? Who's higher-rated at GetClub,
> me or him? Who just made the egregious error (ooooh, it feels so good
> to be able to use that word in this particular context) of wrongly
> assuming
>
Taylor Kinston is afraid of playing as now the game plays much stronger
than earlier and he may loose a game with Normal Level
Recently game strength was again increased. Each level will play
stronger than before.
Strong players were asking for more strength in the game as they win
easily so it was descided to increase level of smaller levels to that
of higher level to satisfy strong players need. Weak player can play
with Beginner & Easy Level only and they will be beaten by them easily.
Strong players may test Normal & Master Level. I am sure they will give
good challenge to even strong players. But they will think a lot.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Beginner will play as it used to in 10-20 seconds. (For average
players, Me and my Friends)
Easy will play like Normal Level 1-2 min/ move (for strong players like
Nomorechess, Bonsai, Richard etc)
Normal will play like Advance Level 5-10 min/move. (For tournament
Players like Taylor Kingston, Bob, Chrisf, Zebediah etc)
Master Level will play much deeper and think a lot 1/2 hr / move Only
for the Deranged and those who have lot of time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
>> to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
>> way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
>> his safety.
I didn't write that. And the rest of this is in poor taste. If you want
contemporary 2007-antisemitic material by current players I have a small
collection in 3 languages.
It ain't pretty, and its very much cruder than the jokey material below.
What is of general interest is the parano level of those who write it - what
I have also noticed is that the same is true for resentment of any 'other'
group, and a significant change in the writing takes place, from formerly
cogent or at least reasonable expression when talking directly about chess,
to distinctly strangled argument and crudity when the resented 'other' is
referenced.
Almost as if this were a different person - and shrinks do sometimes call
this stuff isolated-complex. Formerly you could be having a usual
conversation with that person, and pleased to cll them reasonable - but on
this subject - no! No reason can get a word in.
Even well-heeled smoothies who have never seemed to be nothing else than
reasonable, can switch to ranting tryants with material not susceptible to
any reason at all. You lose all common ground of discussion with such a
person, much as they have lost it in themselves.
While they rant about other people [typically dehumanising them] as devils,
etc - it is they who seemed to be possessed. But such people are as they are
since they will not look at their own relationship to these subjects - and
either deny they exist at all, or provide metaphysical 'reasons' which
exempt their own behaviors.
What seems missing in all these appreciations is that everyone here knows
what I am talking about from their own experience - even if the subject is
anodyne without social implication - such as not liking spinach, and always
getting emotional about it. Although most people here will acknowledge their
own part in raging, and that is the means of the remedy!
Phil Innes
help bot
Chess One wrote:
> "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169366328.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >> People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
> >> to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
> >> way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
> >> his safety.
>
> I didn't write that.
Mush have been careless snipping on my part. I note that
"Chess One wrote:" had but one ">", while what follows
clearly had two of them, so this was included "in" the post
to which I replied, though not written "by" Chess One himself.
> And the rest of this is in poor taste.
Perhaps. I find it all irrelevant, and more than a bit obsessive,
myself. Where I live (unlike say, New York), there are no Jews
to speak of, or if there are, they *blend in* with everyone else. So
all this obsessing about Jews and persecution of them comes off
as leftover stew from WWII. By comparison, Nick Bourbaki's
obsessive ranting about discrimination against Blacks seems far
more to the point here, and one could add the more recent
resentment directed against Mexican immigrants, who come up
here and work side-by-side while not bothering to "blend in" by
learning English. Yet these groups, despite their much greater
size, are by comparison quite ignored, while the Jews steal all
the thunder. Note well how one handicapped man was shot
down when he tried in vain to point out that it was not only the
Jews who were victimized by the Nazis, but other groups as
well. To me, this is indicative of obsession, of a lack of balance.
> If you want
> contemporary 2007-antisemitic material by current players I have a small
> collection in 3 languages.
I should prefer modern English, next the British English dialect, and
third, truly butchered English, for I know not any other languages with
any fluency.
> It ain't pretty, and its very much cruder than the jokey material below.
Well, that puts you one-up on your old pal, Mr. Parr, who seems
to have difficulties in even recognizing the serious from the joking.
> What is of general interest is the parano
An Italian pirrana, male.
> level of those who write it - what
> I have also noticed is that the same is true for resentment of any 'other'
> group, and a significant change in the writing takes place, from formerly
> cogent or at least reasonable expression when talking directly about chess,
> to distinctly strangled argument and crudity when the resented 'other' is
> referenced.
>
> Almost as if this were a different person - and shrinks do sometimes call
> this stuff isolated-complex. Formerly you could be having a usual
> conversation with that person, and pleased to cll them reasonable - but on
> this subject - no! No reason can get a word in.
That is precisely how many of us feel about the Evans ratpack!
Once these lunies get hold of an "idea", they cannot be reasoned
with, period.
> Even well-heeled smoothies
So then, you've heard about my Capablanca-like exploits with
women? Actually, he was a bit timid, and I much prefer the
"attacking style" of a Don Juan.
> who have never seemed to be nothing else than
> reasonable, can switch to ranting tryants with material not susceptible to
> any reason at all.
Ah, you must mean the two Larrys, Mr. Evans and Mr. Parr.
> You lose all common ground of discussion with such a
> person, much as they have lost it in themselves.
I couldn't agree more.
> While they rant about other people [typically dehumanising them] as devils,
Er, no; from what I've seen, they prefer to characterize their
critics as bumbling idiots, not competent enough to rate as
devils, really.
> etc - it is they who seemed to be possessed. But such people are as they are
> since they will not look at their own relationship to these subjects
Great minds think alike! It's as though you were reading my very
thoughts.
> - and
> either deny they exist at all, or provide metaphysical 'reasons' which
> exempt their own behaviors.
Errors "creep in", etc., etc. Spot on, Mr. Innes.
> What seems missing in all these appreciations is that everyone here knows
> what I am talking about from their own experience - even if the subject is
> anodyne without social implication - such as not liking spinach,
Again, the perfect mind-reading!
> and always
> getting emotional about it. Although most people here will acknowledge their
> own part in raging, and that is the means of the remedy!
The remedy, to me, would seem to be first recognizing the
facts, and then -- keeping a rational perspective without lapsing
into obsession about any one particular group of victims --
trying very hard to learn from the mistakes of the past, in order
not to repeat them.
--------
I watched part of a movie on TV last night with some relatives,
and after it ended they both wondered out loud about how those
nasty Middle Eastern countries (read: Muslims) had no respect
for the Geneva Convention, how they trampled its rules. I of
course was the only one out of three typical, ignorant Americans,
who was in the least aware of the fact that the USA has signed,
but not followed, these same rules. [The movie showed a few
of our spies doing a Rambo in Iraq, then getting captured and
tortured.] Despite a brief flare-up in the American press regarding
our own issues being fairly recent, for these two relatives of mine,
all our own sins were long forgotten, if indeed not dismissed out
of hand as anti-American propaganda, regardless of photographic
evidence and even admission.
As the song says, it's a very strange world that we live in, master
Jack.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
About his last days in Portugal.
See Evans On Chess
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1113
Rob
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> NEW PLAY ABOUT ALEKHINE
>
> About his last days in Portugal.
>
> See Evans On Chess
>
> http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1113
>
>
>
Larry,
Thanks for the link. It was excellent.
Rob
Rob
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
> may enjoy.
>
> http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
misinformation. A few comments:
The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
Pillsbury won handily."
Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
"handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
for Pillsbury.
"[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
1895."
Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.
"In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
A nonsensical sentence. The same as what? A 7th move different
compared to what? The article does not say. The other game it should
mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
January 1896.
The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
other famous talents.
"Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
illness."
Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
to today's USCF that could issue such a decision. I know of no
reputable basis for this claim. It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
the article's claim.
And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.
One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.
Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
[was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
Showalter.
The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography. Chessville
again shows itself unconcerned about historical accuracy or the
competence of its contributors.
Chess One
>
>
> On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
>> may enjoy.
>>
>> http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
>
> Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
> misinformation. A few comments:
>
> The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
> by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
> Pillsbury won handily."
> Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
> Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
> games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
> won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
> "handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
> for Pillsbury.
>
> "[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
> 1895."
> Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
> 1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
> convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.
Kingston, who will not write such material himself, critises publication by
Chessville's readers - so far based on the word 'handily' and secondly
complaining that the tournament spans two years - in rejection of the a
preference to the fact that it started in December and ended January. This
is so far, we are assured, "chock-full of misinformation" say the guy who
does not raise the same scruples to detail where it is reported to Gulko was
'away from chess' [meaning he and his wife being beaten up by the KGB
because they were Jewish.]
> "In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
> Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
> Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
> A nonsensical sentence. The same as what?
Presumably the writer intends the same opening until the seventh move, when
there was a deviation.
> A 7th move different
> compared to what? The article does not say.
Does it need to? I suppose anyone actually interested in chess could
download several hundred Pillsbury games offered at the same site with the
article to discovery which var. was played. Of course, I would not suspect
because Lasker was beaten that this is the issue here - although issues
around Lasker have arisen before ;)
> The other game it should
> mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
> January 1896.
>
> The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
> Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
> Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
> Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
> Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
> other famous talents.
Tinker Taylor should complain to the editor of the series, since in 500-700
words he would need to include his /suggested/ text, and if there were too
many words, suggest what may be excluded in their place. Rational, no?
> "Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
> Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
> illness."
> Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
> alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
> to today's USCF
Excuse me - ROFL - these records are in the rented wharehouse in boxes! They
ain't indexed, and its got business correspondance mixed with it plus one
ton of old Chess Life's. This is the comparison being made.
> that could issue such a decision. I know of no
> reputable basis for this claim.
How would you? You are surprised by so much, and content to issue your
surprise rather than ask.
> It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
> United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
> Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
> In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
> Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
> winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
> Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
> acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
> the article's claim.
Yes. And we wonder in turn how Soltis knows this? Since there is 'no
reference' - why is any assumption so secure? <laugh>
It reminds me of the Nottingham tournament book, where there was also /no
referernce/ to placement in regard to Lasker in the tournament book, and
Kingston decided that Hooper was therefore wrong based on literally, 'no
referrence.'
> And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
> Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.
And is there an implication in that 'officially' that there was unofficial
challenge? Why mention it otherwise? Why not say, 'was not challenged', or
define what 'officially' meant to Soltis? Should not Kingston make his own
understanding of what was official and who would have decided it? Or
otherwise why include the word 'official'?
> One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.
One could say why the term 'officially' is included, and what that means,
and whose interpretation it is of what is official, and why the term is
included unless it has some purpose.
> Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
> [was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
> start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
> Showalter.
>
> The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
> little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
> about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography.
As we see, our expert in Stevie Wonder wonders in public why his own vague
suggestions about chess should not take the place of issues which he
questions - which is as he did before.
You would almost think he was an out of chess-work petty-pedant, no?
> Chessville
> again shows itself unconcerned about historical accuracy or the
> competence of its contributors.
This is the guy who can't even say his own opinion about if even authors
should have right at response to criticism at the place he no longer works
at. <snigger>
What a sour-puss, existing on this seeming-knowledge, but when examined is
proved to be Kinsgston's own suppositions, nothing more than that, but
harshly critical of those still writing about chess. Kinston cares so much
for chess history he would rather trash everthing than amend it.
This was the editorial basis of creating this material in the first place -
to protect it from vandals who cannot make themselves clearer than simply
about what they don't like. <shrug> Reasonable corrections, as said before,
are entertained!
Phil Innes
Business Manager, Chessville
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 22, 5:42 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in messagenews:1169502941....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
> >> may enjoy.
>
> >> http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
>
> > Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
> > misinformation. A few comments:
>
> > The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
> > by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
> > Pillsbury won handily."
> > Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
> > Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
> > games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
> > won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
> > "handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
> > for Pillsbury.
>
> > "[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of 1895."
> > Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
> > 1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
> > convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.
>
> Innes: Kingston, who will not write such material himself,
Um, Phil, I've been writing such material for years, and for much
better publications than chessvile.com, including Chess Life, Inside
Chess, Kingpin, Chess Horizons, ChessCafe.com, JeremySilman.com, and
others.
> Innes: ... critises [sic] publication by
> Chessville's readers - so far based on the word 'handily' and secondly
> complaining that the tournament spans two years -
No, Phil. Based on the fact that the article is junk.
> Innes: ... in rejection of the a [sic]
> preference to the fact that it started in December and ended January. This
> is so far, we are assured, "chock-full of misinformation" say [sic] the guy who
> does not raise the same scruples to detail where it is reported to Gulko was
> 'away from chess' [meaning he and his wife being beaten up by the KGB
> because they were Jewish.]
No, Phil, that is not what that passage in the OC refers to, as has
been noted here several times, most notably by your friend Bill Hyde.
> > "In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
> > Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
> > Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
> > A nonsensical sentence. The same as what?
>
> Innes: Presumably the writer intends the same opening until the seventh move, when
> there was a deviation.
Again one must ask: the same as what? To say "This move is the same"
is meaningless.
> > A 7th move different
> > compared to what? The article does not say.
>
> Innes: Does it need to?
Um, yes, Phil. To say "This move is different" means nothing. One
must say "It is different from ..." and then give a specific example.
> Innes: I suppose anyone actually interested in chess could
> download several hundred Pillsbury games offered at the same site with the
> article to discovery which var. was played. Of course, I would not suspect
> because Lasker was beaten that this is the issue here - although issues
> around Lasker have arisen before ;)
>
> > The other game it should
> > mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
> > January 1896.
Notice that our Phil makes no comment on this, probably to conceal
his embarrassment at not knowing what the stem game was.
> > The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
> > Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
> > Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
> > Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
> > Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
> > other famous talents.
>
> Innes: Tinker Taylor should complain to the editor of the series, since in 500-700
> words he would need to include his /suggested/ text, and if there were too
> many words, suggest what may be excluded in their place. Rational, no?
You are saying that a website needs to worry about space? You really
worry about silly things, Phil.
> > "Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
> > Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
> > illness."
>
> > Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
> > alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
> > to today's USCF
>
> Innes: Excuse me - ROFL - these records are in the rented wharehouse in boxes!
> They ain't indexed, and its got business correspondance mixed with it plus one
> ton of old Chess Life's. This is the comparison being made.
>
> > that could issue such a decision. I know of no
> > reputable basis for this claim.
> > Innes: How would you?
By being vastly more informed on chess history than a certain
Cornishman and the ignorami he defends.
> Innes: You are surprised by so much, and content to issue your
> surprise rather than ask.
Really? A few lines above, it clearly appears that I asked "What is
the unnamed author's source for this claim?" So far our Phil has not
answered.
> > It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
> > United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
> > Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
> > In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
> > Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
> > winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
> > Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
> > acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
> > the article's claim.
>
> Innes: Yes. And we wonder in turn how Soltis knows this? Since there is 'no
> reference' - why is any assumption so secure? <laugh>
>
> Innes: It reminds me of the Nottingham tournament book, where there was also /no
> referernce/ to placement in regard to Lasker in the tournament book, and
> Kingston decided that Hooper was therefore wrong based on literally, 'no
> referrence.'
>
> > And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
> > Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.
>
> Innes: And is there an implication in that 'officially' that there was unofficial
> challenge? Why mention it otherwise? Why not say, 'was not challenged', or
> define what 'officially' meant to Soltis? Should not Kingston make his own
> understanding of what was official and who would have decided it? Or
> otherwise why include the word 'official'?
>
> > One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.
>
> Innes: One could say why the term 'officially' is included, and what that means,
> and whose interpretation it is of what is official, and why the term is
> included unless it has some purpose.
Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
I find it a major source of amusement.
> > Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
> > [was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
> > start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
> > Showalter.
>
> > The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
> > little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
> > about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography.
>
> As we see, our expert in Stevie Wonder wonders in public why his own vague
> suggestions about chess should not take the place of issues which he
> questions - which is as he did before.
Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
I find it a major source of amusement.
EZoto
wrote:
Why would you put in the word handily then? In the USA beating
someone handily is like "well" Florida over Ohio State in the NCAA
football championship. Showalter - Pillsbury match was a tough match.
Tarrasch beat Showalter handily. Lasker beat Tarrasch handily.
EZoto
Rob
Taylor,
LOL!
It's always enjoyable to read your "refutes" of minor points. Just
remember, the final critic and the only one that counts is the general
public. The general public ,even as a fraction of a percent, has a
greater potential to change the face of chess and the chess playing
public than the entirety of organized chess today.
In plain speak:one percent of three billion is more than 100 percent on
five hundred thousand.
I think the "one percenters" are where these articles are aimed. Your
submissions might not even make the grade, they would have to hold ones
attention while reading.
Rob
Chess Freak
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169487827.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
help bot
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
> I find it a major source of amusement.
Well, I for one had no trouble in seeing how "Tinker Taylor's" many
criticisms of this article are perfectly valid (except for *one* silly
nitpick).
Apparently, Chessville is IM Innes' Web site, so this is going to be
another flamewar style thread, its contents dictated more by the
relationship between the two warriors than by what appeared in that
article. And speaking of amusement, it would seem that "IM Innes"
has chided "Tinker Taylor" for not himself contributing material for
this, yet why should a sworn enemy of the Web site's editor do
something as silly as that? It makes no sense. It would be like
Tinker Taylor asking IM Innes to contribute his thoughts for a book
review, to be published by -- and credited to -- Tinker Taylor! In
sum,
fugetaboudit.
IM Innes should consider the possibility of editing some of these
contributions, to weed out the worst misinformation and maybe even
to add in his own two cents worth. Something along these lines,
perhaps:
Sanny: "Program is grately improved now. All problems fix.
Stronger than Fritz now! Will defeet Tayler Kinston easilly!"
edited: "The GetClub program has again been modified; a few
bugs fixed; perhaps slightly improved strength of play. It is not
entirely inconceivable that even players such as Taylor Kingston
will find it a somewhat more interesting opponent now." -- Ed.
-- help bot
help bot
Rob wrote:
> LOL!
> It's always enjoyable to read your "refutes" of minor points. Just
> remember, the final critic and the only one that counts is the general
> public. The general public ,even as a fraction of a percent, has a
> greater potential to change the face of chess and the chess playing
> public than the entirety of organized chess today.
>
> In plain speak:one percent of three billion is more than 100 percent on
> five hundred thousand.
[*That* was plainspeak? ;>D]
> I think the "one percenters" are where these articles are aimed. Your
> submissions might not even make the grade, they would have to hold ones
> attention while reading.
Mr. Mitchell, your brown-nosing of IM Innes is pathetic. You really
ought to consider the possibility of using an organ other than your
nose -- say, your *brain*, for instance! You can't justify the sort of
sloppy material TK has criticized by suggesting that the public would
prefer it to something better; that's just plain silly.
My take is that having the readers contribute material is a good idea
in the sense that it encourages reader participation; but as we have
seen, it is also a poor idea in terms of the quality of the results.
So,
where does that leave us? With some reader participation AND some
negative feedback from the critics -- that's where.
-- help bot
SBD
On Jan 23, 1:02 am, "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My take is that having the readers contribute material is a good idea
> in the sense that it encourages reader participation; but as we have
> seen, it is also a poor idea in terms of the quality of the results.
> So,
> where does that leave us? With some reader participation AND some
> negative feedback from the critics -- that's where.
It's easy enough to have an open submission system so long as you have
experts to smooth out material that is "close" and reject the blatantly
poor material. However, without this quality check/feedback loop,
you're pretty much just posting anyone's opinion and all the "folk
tales" that have perpetuated themselves over the years. I would have
expected that the vignette website would have a list of chess
historians - an editorial board of sorts - who would check out the
material. In fact, without that kind of feedback loop you are setting
yourself up for disaster by publishing on such a site. Too many
possible mistakes.....
I would also think that asking people to post for nothing other than
their name on a website will not encourage those who are more serious
in their scholarship. Even a $25 book prize per week for the best
vignette would probably at least get some of those with an interest in
chess history to write a few.
In many cases, you do get what you pay for... and from nothing usually
comes nothing of value.....
Intimating that TK is a poor writer is also a low blow - not done by
you bot of course - especially by someone who can't seem to piece a
coherent sentence together more than twice in a row.
Rob
That is your take. I simply said what was being written by current
historians was not stimulating any intrest in chess,generally speaking.
I also said I didn't know if what Taylor would submit would be
published because I am unsure if he can write anything that is
interesting as literature. No doubt he has a vast factual knowledge. It
is sometimes not possible for those who have intellectual knowledge to
translate that into a form the general public find interestingAnd for
the record, I can string together at least three coherent sentences.
LOL
Rob
PS
So far as I can tell, anyone who wishes may write and send in a
submission. At least someone is trying to stimulate interest in chess
beyond just harping about it.
David Richerby
> The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
> by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match,
> and Pillsbury won handily."
Surely even you will admit that Pillsbury used his hands in the
process of winning? He could hardly have moved the pieces otherwise.
> "[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
> 1895."
> Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
> 1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is
> the convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.
But if it began in December and ended in January, it didn't last two
months, let alone two years! Just look at a calendar and it's
patently obvious.
> "Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
> Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
> illness."
> Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
> alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable to
> today's USCF that could issue such a decision. I know of no
> reputable basis for this claim.
Have you read Theodore Roosevelt's memoirs very carefully?
Nnnnnnnnng! Give me my brain back, Phil!!! Graaaaarrrrrgh!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Slimy Painting (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece but it's
covered in goo!
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 22, 5:42 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> You would almost think he was an out of chess-work petty-pedant, no?
For the latest product of my being "out of chess-work," I refer
interested readers to the 2007 edition of the International Chess
Calendar:
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=0&PID=1096
It's also featured on the cover of the latest USCF catalog. Been
editing the calendar for five years now. I hope people enjoy reading it
as much as I do writing it.
Chess One
>> Innes: Kingston, who will not write such material himself,
As usual, Kingston cuts commentary because he would rather speak for other
people full time! If he'd let it stand then I think we would have seen a
hit, a palpable hit! on how petty he was.
> Um, Phil, I've been writing such material for years, and for much
> better publications than chessvile.com, including Chess Life, Inside
> Chess, Kingpin, Chess Horizons, ChessCafe.com, JeremySilman.com, and
> others.
Um... years... but is now out of chess-work, which is what Kingston Kut.
>> Innes: ... critises [sic] publication by
>> Chessville's readers - so far based on the word 'handily' and secondly
>> complaining that the tournament spans two years -
>
> No, Phil. Based on the fact that the article is junk.
'junk' says Kingston handily -
>> Innes: ... in rejection of the a [sic]
>> preference to the fact that it started in December and ended January.
>> This
>> is so far, we are assured, "chock-full of misinformation" say [sic] the
>> guy who
>> does not raise the same scruples to detail where it is reported to Gulko
>> was
>> 'away from chess' [meaning he and his wife being beaten up by the KGB
>> because they were Jewish.]
>
> No, Phil, that is not what that passage in the OC refers to, as has
> been noted here several times, most notably by your friend Bill Hyde.
What do YOU understand of that reference to Gulko? When asked, you never
seem to 'remember' your own opinion ;)
As I remember it, you thought the Oxford entry was just dandy!
Though you have plenty of 'handily' available opinions about 'junk' which is
'chock-full of misinformation', you can hardly wait to tell people about
those factors, except of course, the editor of the column.
>> > "In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
>> > Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
>> > Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
>> > A nonsensical sentence. The same as what?
>>
>> Innes: Presumably the writer intends the same opening until the seventh
>> move, when
>> there was a deviation.
>
> Again one must ask: the same as what? To say "This move is the same"
> is meaningless.
>
>> > A 7th move different
>> > compared to what? The article does not say.
>>
>> Innes: Does it need to?
>
> Um, yes, Phil. To say "This move is different" means nothing. One
> must say "It is different from ..." and then give a specific example.
I personally have seen even world champions writing, X varied at move Y, and
I always took this to mean that they varied from what was played before. I
suppose being specific about the opening would be all very well, but since
this material is about Pillsbury, I further suppose that the writer intends
an emphasis on Pillsbury's preparation, which Lasker did not cope with.
>> Innes: I suppose anyone actually interested in chess could
>> download several hundred Pillsbury games offered at the same site with
>> the
>> article to discovery which var. was played. Of course, I would not
>> suspect
>> because Lasker was beaten that this is the issue here - although issues
>> around Lasker have arisen before ;)
>>
>> > The other game it should
>> > mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
>> > January 1896.
>
> Notice that our Phil makes no comment on this, probably to conceal
> his embarrassment at not knowing what the stem game was.
Kingston really wants to be editor of this series, doesn't he? Anything not
noted is 'probably' due lack of knowledge by other people, rather than a
decision to include or exclude varieties of detail in some 500-700 words.
What evidence Kingston has for the basis of anyone else's opinion is not
known. He is content to invent it.
>> > The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
>> > Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
>> > Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
>> > Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
>> > Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
>> > other famous talents.
>>
>> Innes: Tinker Taylor should complain to the editor of the series, since
>> in 500-700
>> words he would need to include his /suggested/ text, and if there were
>> too
>> many words, suggest what may be excluded in their place. Rational, no?
>
> You are saying that a website needs to worry about space? You really
> worry about silly things, Phil.
Since I did not say 'that a website needs to worry about space', but did say
that readers need to attempt a range of words to offer a consistent format
which is not intended to be an encyclopediac entry on everything the player
did - but something approachable by regular folks, and something which can
be adjusted as necessary by other fols, then I don't think Kingston
understands what he is responding to as usual - and again is content to read
into what others did /not/ say, that is, to plainly invent stuff. Then,
without further curiosity he offers them advice trite based on his own
miscomprehension and laziness. Lord Kingston has spoken!
>> > "Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
>> > Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
>> > illness."
>>
>> > Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
>> > alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
>> > to today's USCF
>>
>> Innes: Excuse me - ROFL - these records are in the rented wharehouse in
>> boxes!
>> They ain't indexed, and its got business correspondance mixed with it
>> plus one
>> ton of old Chess Life's. This is the comparison being made.
>>
>> > that could issue such a decision. I know of no
>> > reputable basis for this claim.
>
>> > Innes: How would you?
>
> By being vastly more informed on chess history than a certain
> Cornishman and the ignorami he defends.
Lord Kingston now yells from the Tower that he is superior to others! He
knows more, vastly more - and when asked what - he yells from the Tower that
he is superior and knows more... ROFL
>> Innes: You are surprised by so much, and content to issue your
>> surprise rather than ask.
>
> Really? A few lines above, it clearly appears that I asked "What is
> the unnamed author's source for this claim?" So far our Phil has not
> answered.
So far, Kingston is entirely content to suppose based on his own
preferences. If he doesn't like what other people write as responses, he
either snips them - or makes up what he would like to disagreee with. -- So,
yes, 'really'.
But if Tinker Taylor really wanted to know, why is he asking me, not the
editor? I don't think he wants to know that much. Certainly not on the
evidence of this writing. What ask when you can simply invent other people's
opinion for them?
>> > It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
>> > United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
>> > Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
>> > In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
>> > Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
>> > winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
>> > Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
>> > acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
>> > the article's claim.
>>
>> Innes: Yes. And we wonder in turn how Soltis knows this? Since there is
>> 'no
>> reference' - why is any assumption so secure? <laugh>
>>
>> Innes: It reminds me of the Nottingham tournament book, where there was
>> also /no
>> referernce/ to placement in regard to Lasker in the tournament book, and
>> Kingston decided that Hooper was therefore wrong based on literally, 'no
>> referrence.'
So when it is Kingston's turn to say why he asserts anything, he goes as
quiet as a ... ;)
>> > And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
>> > Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.
>>
>> Innes: And is there an implication in that 'officially' that there was
>> unofficial
>> challenge? Why mention it otherwise? Why not say, 'was not challenged',
>> or
>> define what 'officially' meant to Soltis? Should not Kingston make his
>> own
>> understanding of what was official and who would have decided it? Or
>> otherwise why include the word 'official'?
>>
>> > One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.
>>
>> Innes: One could say why the term 'officially' is included, and what that
>> means,
>> and whose interpretation it is of what is official, and why the term is
>> included unless it has some purpose.
>
> Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
> I find it a major source of amusement.
In response to a question to himself, Kingston changes the subject from how
we know anything, to 'defending crap.' He finds this funny, he says. The
only thing that is deadly serious is what he himself says, and he certainly
doesn't call that 'defending crap', since of course, he wrote it, and /his
opinions/ are never never never ever subject to question. Its these other
people who must be questioned and insulted!
>> > Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
>> > [was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
>> > start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
>> > Showalter.
>>
>> > The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
>> > little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
>> > about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography.
>>
>> As we see, our expert in Stevie Wonder wonders in public why his own
>> vague
>> suggestions about chess should not take the place of issues which he
>> questions - which is as he did before.
>
> Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
> I find it a major source of amusement.
Without anything to say on behalf of how /he/ knows anything in order to use
his own term about others, 'crap', Kingston cuts the final paragraph which
was about people like himself who preferred to vandalise and destroy
Wikipedia chess entries, rather than amend them.
He is not brave enough to even indicate that he cut this - which as stated,
was the reason to begin the project!
This series, I wrote before, IS subject to amendment - but its not subject
to being changed because some whining pedant throws a tantrum and smears the
whole thing in a public newsgroup.
Sorry, Kingston can write his perfect material someplace else, if indeed he
could tolerate an editor, - you he is right, Chessville is not a good enough
for him, nor are its ordinary readers perfect people writing perfect
histories - so...
We the People will try to muddle along without Lord K.
Phil Innes
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
> > may enjoy.
> >
> > http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/vignettes/index.htm
>
> Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
> misinformation. A few comments:
Taylor, why waste time polishing this doggie diamond? But if you are
going to slum, so will I.
> The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
> by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
> Pillsbury won handily."
> Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
> Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
> games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
> won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
> "handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
> for Pillsbury.
As I wrote in my Showalter article at The Campbell Report, "Pillsbury
eventually won the match, but it was a tremendous struggle, with the
scores even until nearly the end. The nineteenth game displays
Showalter's fighting qualities at their finest, as well as his penchant
for exchange sacrifices."
> "[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
> 1895."
> Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
> 1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
> convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.
>
> "In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
> Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
> Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
> A nonsensical sentence. The same as what? A 7th move different
> compared to what? The article does not say. The other game it should
> mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
> January 1896.
Why am I not surprised Innes/Mitchell didn't know the stem game?
> The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
> Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
> Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
> Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
> Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
> other famous talents.
Perhaps we should be happy nothing was written on those subjects.
> "Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
> Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
> illness."
> Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
> alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
> to today's USCF that could issue such a decision. I know of no
> reputable basis for this claim. It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
> United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
> Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
And it's not in Pope's Pillsbury biography. The author of this twaddle
hasn't consulted any good work on Pillsbury.
> In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
> Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
> winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
> Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
> acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
> the article's claim.
> And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
> Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.
> One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.
There does appears to have been talk of a challenge. Pardon me for
self-quotation again; this is from my 2004 article on Cambridge Spring
1904, published in The Pennswoodpusher. Grandmaster Larry Evans told me
he liked the piece, incidentally:
"...the chess columnists praised Marshall's achievement in their most
extravagant prose. Napier, in his Pittsburg Dispatch column, compared
the "virility" of Marshall's chess to the poetry of Christopher
Marlowe; Reichhelm praised Marshall's daring, and made his trademark
comparison to Morphy. The North American columnist also stated this was
the greatest performance in a chess tournament since "Zuckertort
razzle-dazzled his way through the London tourney of 1883."
"With such hyperbole seeing print, it's no surprise that after
Marshall's success in the tournament there was talk of a match between
the victor of Cambridge Springs and the Hero of Hastings 1895.
Reichhelm, in his North American column of June 5th, reported 'The
proposed match between Pillsbury and Marshall is taking shape, and it
is up to the friends of the latter to raise the necessary stake. Mr.
Pillsbury's health is rapidly improving, and his proposed stay in
Atlantic City during the coming summer will almost guarantee a return
to his old status.' "
Reichhelm knew Pillsbury, so there should be some truth to his
statement.
> Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
> [was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
> start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
> Showalter.
>
> The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
> little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
> about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography.
LOL!
Chessville
> again shows itself unconcerned about historical accuracy or the
> competence of its contributors.
Agreed. But then again, who is the Business Manager? What more could we
expect?
SBD
On Jan 23, 6:19 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Intimating that TK is a poor writer is also a low blow - not done by
> > you bot of course - especially by someone who can't seem to piece a
> > coherent sentence together more than twice in a row.That is your take. I simply said what was being written by current
> historians was not stimulating any intrest in chess,generally speaking.
> I also said I didn't know if what Taylor would submit would be
> published because I am unsure if he can write anything that is
> interesting as literature.
History is not literature. This seems to be a sticking point for you.
Second, perhaps if you took the time to read some of the things TK has
written, instead of speculating on his abilities, you- wait - no, you
wouldn't be able to - that is, most discerning readers could tell he is
an excellent writer.
Chess One
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>> Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
>> I find it a major source of amusement.
>
> Well, I for one had no trouble in seeing how "Tinker Taylor's" many
> criticisms of this article are perfectly valid (except for *one* silly
> nitpick).
>
> Apparently, Chessville is IM Innes' Web site,
O Gawd - 'apparently'.
Why is it that every time certain people write 'apparently', then they are
consciously lying? And they couple this lie with a suggestion that they are
capable of evaluating other people? Too tall in the saddle themselves, they
decline to ask, and instead provoke by lies and distortions.
Instead they are content to trash chess writing by the public, in public,
and write far more to trash chess writing efforts by other people than
writing something cogent to a topic themselves? You could almost think them
incapable of writing anything , no? Or is it fear?
Since then, their efforts might be just as subject to public criticism as
they so bravely snipe at from the shadows where their own magnificent
knowledge lies a-moulderin in its grave.
--------
> IM Innes should consider the possibility of editing some of these
> contributions, to weed out the worst misinformation and maybe even
> to add in his own two cents worth. Something along these lines,
> perhaps:
I wouldn't lift a finger for sad liars who pretend they have a care and
spend all day distorting the work of others - and telling other people what
they should do to impress people like themselves.
Live your own life Kennedy, not other people's, then maybe someone will take
you seriously? <shrug>
But I don't care if you don't.
Phil Innes
The Historian
SBD wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:19 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Intimating that TK is a poor writer is also a low blow - not done by
> > > you bot of course - especially by someone who can't seem to piece a
> > > coherent sentence together more than twice in a row.That is your take. I simply said what was being written by current
> > historians was not stimulating any intrest in chess,generally speaking.
> > I also said I didn't know if what Taylor would submit would be
> > published because I am unsure if he can write anything that is
> > interesting as literature.
>
> History is not literature.
No, it's not, but it can be. I practice history in that manner.
>This seems to be a sticking point for you.
I think Robtroll means "literature" as practiced by the National
Enquirer or Weekly World News.
> Second, perhaps if you took the time to read some of the things TK has
> written, instead of speculating on his abilities, you- wait - no, you
> wouldn't be able to - that is, most discerning readers could tell he is
> an excellent writer.
I agree.
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
> I find it a major source of amusement.
It is amusing, but it's addicting, Taylor. I'm stopping now.
Chess One
"David Richerby" <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:j2x*2+...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Taylor Kingston <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>> The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
>> by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match,
>> and Pillsbury won handily."
>
> Surely even you will admit that Pillsbury used his hands in the
> process of winning? He could hardly have moved the pieces otherwise.
>
>
>> "[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
>> 1895."
>> Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
>> 1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is
>> the convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.
>
> But if it began in December and ended in January, it didn't last two
> months, let alone two years! Just look at a calendar and it's
> patently obvious.
>
>
>> "Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
>> Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
>> illness."
>> Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
>> alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable to
>> today's USCF that could issue such a decision. I know of no
>> reputable basis for this claim.
>
> Have you read Theodore Roosevelt's memoirs very carefully?
>
> Nnnnnnnnng! Give me my brain back, Phil!!! Graaaaarrrrrgh!
Sure Dave, but it wasn't me who took it! I never wrote a word of the above.
PS: A word to Louis: I have written words which occur in the above, that is,
I used those words elsewhere. I only mention this to save you pointing it
out possible confusion people may have about the topic, over the coming
months.
PPS: look out for the next Vignettes where the games of Superman will be
featured, including some little known ones played as a baby on Al-gol, [not
to be confused with his famous game against Al Gore] and which were recently
discovered in the Fortress of Solitude - which itself was thought not to
have existed! But, hah! They said the same about Troy.
Cordially, Brutus.
Chess One
mention of themselves. This is all very well! Really! Nothing bad to say at
all.
Happy Chinese new Year to one and all!
PI
"The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169560757.9...@d71g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chess One
about chess was the citation of Kingpin by Lord Kingston.
The last edition of that chess magazine took 2 years to emerge to paying
subscribers, and was so full of errors it had to be withdrawn and reprinted.
2 years in the making, and still without sufficient editorial attention!
Chessville is not looking for error-free work, since no such thing exists -
nor material to please all viewers, since that it in effect a compendium of
articles which no single article/perspective can achieve.
It is looking for a fair attempt at a subject, which can be improved upon
/as necessary/. Its not looking for special people to write, but people who
wouldn't mind sincere corrections or amendments being made.
I also note that this material is popular, and historical writing receives
lots of page-hits, and in the past few months these have /increased/ over
1,000 hits /per day/ ;))))
While 'writing' calendars for sales material is no doubt a fascinating
preoccupation and contribution to chess; or state histories of
correspondance chess which can reach as many as 82 people a month [?] such
people should reserve their perfection to their own realm-ettes, which they
can contentedly lord over, and with their royal permissions, allow the chess
public its own popular choice of reading.
It will inevitably contain flaws in writing, and errors of fact. But so does
all writing! Even given 2 years to get it together as did Kingpin. The only
difference betwixt this, and other series of writings, is that this one is
quite honest about its scope, and is content to be for and by the people,
dispensing with what is otherwise proposed as a standard; purple toga'd
lotus eaters, who entertain us here with constant references to their own
magnificence.
Phil Innes
"The Historian" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169562136.6...@d71g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Kane
And you and Phil do not. You should listen to him, not argue
with him.
It
> is sometimes not possible for those who have intellectual knowledge to
> translate that into a form the general public find interestingAnd for
> the record, I can string together at least three coherent sentences.
> LOL
> Rob
>
> PS
>
> So far as I can tell, anyone who wishes may write and send in a
> submission. At least someone is trying to stimulate interest in chess
> beyond just harping about it.
Are your mindless defenses of Innes' pathological dishonesty
also to stimulate interest in chess? Please explain how that
works. You are giving chess popularizers a bad name and must
be stopped.
Chess One
"David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ot6dncjG4sOp3ivY...@comcast.com...
> Are your mindless defenses of Innes' pathological dishonesty
> also to stimulate interest in chess?
Care to be specific, or just shout your mouth off in public?
HERE IS THE CHALLENGE
-again, for slow people-
Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player or
event? Of course, that's hard, and subject to criticism. But not to your
taste? I would take anyone who actually tried to write material themselves
much more seriously than these pretenders. What are these standards that
people want /other/ people to uphold, [ROFL] when they write this watery
drizzle themselves?
If you can't do it David Kane, maybe give those who try a break? Course, its
up to you, and mouthing off is so easy, no? Or are you like Lord Kingston
for whom nothing is good enough, and you are saving your own genius for
Jesus?
> Please explain how that
> works. You are giving chess popularizers a bad name and must
> be stopped.
LOL. Who, what, where, when? How vague can you possibly get?
PI
David Kane
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8Dtth.3214$Kf.519@trndny07...
>
> Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player or
> event?
This assumes that those capable of
writing an exemplary essay would want
it associated with the Innes lie machine.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Taylor
Kingston even admits to reading the swill.
Rob
David Kane wrote:
>>
> Are your mindless defenses of Innes' pathological dishonesty
> also to stimulate interest in chess? Please explain how that
> works. You are giving chess popularizers a bad name and must
> be stopped.
Ah, the one eyed green monster rears it's ugly head(s).
For the record:
!) have read some of Taylors work and found it very dry.
2) Brennen does make what he writes more palatable but it's hard to get
past his personality.
3) Very little of what I have read that portrays itself as " chess
history " is interesting to read
4) The majority of the general public does not find chess history
interesting because it is written by chess nerds who think that the
game is the central figure rather than just a common interest these
people shared.
Rob
Chess One
>
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:8Dtth.3214$Kf.519@trndny07...
>
>>
>> Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player
>> or event?
>
> This assumes that those capable of
> writing an exemplary essay would want
> it associated with the Innes lie machine.
yes assumes, yet i do not edit a single word of it - but any excuse for
bitching is good, no?
> Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Taylor
> Kingston even admits to reading the swill.
Frankly? You mean the guy who bad-mouths other people nonstop for his
preferred meanings - themselves without substance? You set your own standard
with both comments, citizen.
Frankly, if you have something to say, and I say this as a chess player,
show me, don't bullshit about your hidden magnificence ;)
PI
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 23, 4:59 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:8Dtth.3214$Kf.519@trndny07...
>
> > Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player or
> > event?
>
> This assumes that those capable of
> writing an exemplary essay would want
> it associated with the Innes lie machine.
>
> Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Taylor
> Kingston even admits to reading the swill.
Dave, I generally read nothing on Innes' site. I only looked at the
"Chess Vignettes" page because they made a point of hyping them here.
In any event, as a regular of rgcm/p, I can hardly claim to have the
highest taste in reading material. ;-)