Biggest jerks among world class chess players
DAVID GRANIK
title....
1. Karpov-- We are coming up on 25 years of Karpov slime! Without a doubt
he is the biggest jerk in chess. Cheapo chapionship matches, winning
forfeited matches, demanding or accepting very favorable conditions. Cold,
petty, greedy, disingenuous and cynical.
2. Fischer-- what a wreck of a human being. about him, nothing more needs to
be said...
3. Kasparov--even more egotistical than Karpov....he's wrought twice as much
distruction onto chess as Karpov, in half the amount of time. His touch move
against Polgar was a scandal. He is a graceless winner, a very poor loser,
and bitter about conceding draws to anybody except for Anand and Kramnik.
4. Salov-- there have been enough incidents involving Salov to conclude
that he is one very mean spirited and unpleasant player. Kind of Karpov
lite.
5. Kamsky--greedy, disputatious, paranoid, with his very charming enforcer
father, Rustam.
6.Browne-- when is the last tournament in which Browne has not had a snit
fit? Most GMs don't try to make their own pairings...he is way too high
strung and a great pain in the ass for any TD
7.Azmaiparishvili--apparently corrupt, he is said to have bought a lot of
rating points from some sanctions impoverished Serbian GMs . As if there are
not enough sleazes from Eastern Europe.
8. Keene--a plagarist and hack writer, who is also an endless self promoter.
Rarely has such a talentless GM made so many $$ from chess.
9. Rohde--one of those disreputable New York GMs who has cheated people with
various get-rich-quick internet schemes. He certainly doesn't have the
ability to earn many $$ through actual tournament play. His promise is worth
less than nothing. His Chess Life column sucks...
10. Federowicz-- a whiner who pouts and withdraws whenever he gets upset in
open tournaments--which is fairly frequently. If he can't be good at
winning, he should at least learn to be a good loser.
11. Benjamin-- due to his insider status as a USCF politico, he is given
opportunities that other ( better, but less well connected US GMs can only
envy. He sold out chess to earn some corperate $$ with IBM. Anybody remember
Chess Chow?
12. Ippolito-- This is the "Eric Johnson" special. Ippolito is a fair to
middling Junior player who was the US representative in the World Junior Ch.
in Calcutta. He had a mediocre result there... what a surprise for a player
who has never even come close to winning a US Junior Ch. The US ought to
send better representatives, like Irina Krush, or none at all.
Gilbert Palmer
think are not jerks?
Say "Non-jerks among world class chess players". I mean it is all very well
telling us about your nominations in a negative category, what about the
positive category? Who do you admire?
Cheers
Gilbert Palmer
DAVID GRANIK wrote in message <79optv$q...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>In order to qualify for the list, the player in question must possess a
FIDE
>title....
[post snipped]
gee...@my-dejanews.com
In article <79optv$q...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
"DAVID GRANIK" <dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> In order to qualify for the list, the player in question must possess a FIDE
> title....
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
smith...@my-dejanews.com
I think it is important to mention however that I believe there are VERY few
people who can be considered very "nice". There seems to be very few good
and bad guys today, everything is not in black and white, but rather shades
of gray.
LIST OF THE "NICEST" TOP PLAYERS EVER IN CHESS:
Paul Morphy
Viswanathan Anand
David Bronstein
Paul Keres
Tigran Petrosian
Boris Spassky
Isidor Gunsberg
Mark Taimanov
Max Euwe
DOES ANYONE THINK THIS LIST IS GOOD?
Eric Fleet
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
including some who are no longer among us):
GM Lombardy
GM Korchnoi
IM Julio Kaplan
GM Rossolimo
GM Ed Lasker
IM Shirazi
Some of my choices of people I don't know very well could be incorrect
because I was lucky enough to meet them on a good day.
Tomek
>Petrosian. Definitely a class-act and a nice guy.
Euwe, never heard a bad word about him!!!
Tomek
gee...@my-dejanews.com
nice guy...Among the WCs, Smyslov seems like a classy character.
In article <36C034B4...@neo.lrun.com>,
Eric Fleet <cfl...@neo.lrun.com> wrote:
> Petrosian. Definitely a class-act and a nice guy.
>
> > David, any chance of balancing this post with your list of players who you
> > think are not jerks?
> >
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jerry
<deleted stuff>
> 12. Ippolito-- This is the "Eric Johnson" special. Ippolito is a fair to
> middling Junior player who was the US representative in the World Junior Ch.
> in Calcutta. He had a mediocre result there... what a surprise for a player
> who has never even come close to winning a US Junior Ch. The US ought to
> send better representatives, like Irina Krush, or none at all.
Whats wrong with you? Do you actually know any of the people you are
listing?
Is there anything that makes you qualified to comment on Dean Ippolito's
playing
strength, let alone to call him inappropriate names?
Jerry
--
Free web ads are again available for chess goods, services, and
activities. Some restrictions apply.
email: ch...@nystar.com
http://www.nystar.com
http://www.nystar.com/free.htm
http://www.nystar.com/chess
pulgao
>Here is my shot at the "nicest" guys in chess:
>
>I think it is important to mention however that I believe there are VERY few
>people who can be considered very "nice". There seems to be very few good
>and bad guys today, everything is not in black and white, but rather shades
>of gray.
>
>LIST OF THE "NICEST" TOP PLAYERS EVER IN CHESS:
>
>Paul Morphy
>Viswanathan Anand
>David Bronstein
>Paul Keres
>Tigran Petrosian
>Boris Spassky
>Isidor Gunsberg
>Mark Taimanov
>Max Euwe
>
>DOES ANYONE THINK THIS LIST IS GOOD?
>
Don't forget Richard Reti!
-- Steve Lopez
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/index.html
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
dIMITRI
dejanews.com writes
>In no particular order, and from my own personal experience only (and
>including some who are no longer among us):
>
>GM Lombardy
>
>GM Korchnoi
But Korchnoi is a very bad loser. In general he's okay, but his attitude
to people who beat him is very bad.
--
/\_/\ dIMITRI
( o.o ) http://www.dimitri.demon.nl/
> - < Demon Internet: http://www.demon.nl/
pulgao
>In no particular order, and from my own personal experience only (and
>including some who are no longer among us):
>
>GM Lombardy
>
>GM Korchnoi
>
>IM Julio Kaplan
>
>GM Rossolimo
>
>GM Ed Lasker
>
>IM Shirazi
From my personal experience:
NM Bruce Pandolfini (this guy is a candidate for freaking *sainthood*)
CM Jon Edwards (one of my closest friends a few years back, when I
could still get hold of him. This was before his international CC
career really took off and he started spending 20 hours a day working
on his games).
NM Ken Smith (a riot to talk to)
IGM Peter Svidler (we got off to a rocky start at the 1995 World Open
but became friends by the time the week was over)
CM Paul Hodges (you have to like a guy who's a Cardiff City supporter)
GM Lubosh Kavalek (Nigel Short can go jump in the lake)
GM Robert Byrne (a true gentleman)
NM Alex Dunne (OK, I'm biased -- Alex and I wrote a book together)
Murray Campbell (not a titled player, but he always took the time to
answer my stupid questions about computer chess no matter how busy he
was)
NM Pete Prohaska (a veritable fountain of chess advice and
information. His offhand suggestions raised my rating by 50 points,
back when I still cared about numbers)
NM Sunil Weeramantry (I only talked to him a few times [again at the
1995 World Open, where I fixed his laptop computer], but his
enthusiasm for chess was truly infectious)
and a host of other masters and experts too numerous to mention that
I've been pleased to call my friends down through the years.
Joe.D.Veal-1
gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
List of players who are class people.
1.Jerome Hanken--His publishing of his losses in major touranments to rank and
file players like Richard Bolton in the National Open tells something about his
character. My Hanken story was after the final round game in the US Open in
Orlando; I was walking around the touranment hall when I saw Hanken analyzing his
last round game loss with his opponent. The opponent was Steven Sevush who
managed to tie for 1st A money with 2 other people. Hanken's wit and class showed
in this post-mortem by complementing Sevush's play in the endgame. Hanken
published this game in Chess Life with a diagram showing the winning move of
Sevush's.
2.Bill Goichberg---I know I will get hazed by Dorsch, Doyle, and company, however,
I have a story to tell. About 5 or 6 years ago, I was playing in a touranment in
Texas called the Southwest Class Championships. After my last round, I and my
father who was also a participant at the touranment went back to Oklahoma( I had
school the next day). 2 days later, I realized that because of my laziness; I had
left my chess equipment in Texas at the touranment site. For those who know me,
this act is not unusual for me because I tend to be absent-minded at times. I
figured that this equipment(board from the National High School Championships in
Dallas, pieces, and a Master Quartz clock, and the bag that carries these things)
was lost forever. Fortunately, Mr. Goichberg picked up my equipment at the site
and managed to return my equipment within a few days through Federal
Express(special delivery).
3. Ira Lee Riddle--He let me borrow a pencil so that I could record my first round
game in the US Open.
4. Jim Berry--Local touranment organizer in my area. Treats everybody with
fairness and is just.
5.Alexander Yermolinsky--Classsy GM. You cannot find a more down-to-earth
grandmaster anywhere.
6. John Dunlap--Local touranment director in my area. He is the best TD I have
ever known(He does not play favorites.)
7.Mark Hulsey--Local master in my area. He is one of the most modest people I've
known.
8.Irina Krush--Good kid who does not seem to have the inklings of a burnt out
chess prodigy.
9.Matthew Traidi--Cool kid who acts much older than his age. Played him in US Open
and was crushed in 25 moves. He was kind enough to analyze the game with me
without the general arrogance of some masters(I know Matthew was a expert, but he
playing like a master:)))
10.Michael Cavallo--This guy on this newsgroup and in life seems to treat people
like they should treated(With fairness and respect). My example was that after a
long arduous game in the final round of the US Open; he complemented his
opponent's determination in the game. This opponent was rated in the 1200's and
his name was Michael Yohannes. The game ended to be a draw giving Yohannes $2000
for finishing 1st D at the US Open.
Mike Cummings
>In no particular order, and from my own personal experience only (and
>including some who are no longer among us):
[Great list deleted for brevity]
I was a student of IM Nikolay Minev, and I he's one of the nicest people
I've ever met. Very cool person.
--
Mike Cummings Seattle,WA
"Laurie got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that' s what
her dinner tasted like." - Jack Handey
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
dIMITRI <newsm...@dimitri.demon.nl> wrote:
> In article <79pqh9$g5c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gnohmon8715@my-
> dejanews.com writes
> >including some who are no longer among us):
> >
> >
> >GM Korchnoi
>
> But Korchnoi is a very bad loser. In general he's okay, but his attitude
> to people who beat him is very bad.
Fortunately, I didn't beat him :-)
I'm only an FM, and he was still beyond grandmaster at the time...
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
> including some who are no longer among us):
Hey, I did a poor job of thinking about who should be on the list!
Near the top of the list should be Maurice Ashley.
Peter Coleman
Junior championships (already missing some notable names) surely you can
accept the comment about his relative strength and the inappropriateness
of his selection.
However I can't see why he should warrant a mention in a list of jerks.
It's not his fault if he gets picked ahead of others more deserving. The
selectors are the ones who should be appearing on the list.
--
Peter
Jerry <ch...@nystar.com> wrote in message
news:36C079...@nystar.com...
Peter Coleman
--
Peter
mbur...@montana.com
~25 years ago, I sued Walter Browne, and lost. Nowadays, I see him
differently. Walter is a good guy compared to this flamer....
Max Burkett
DAVID GRANIK
Peter Coleman wrote in message <79qapn$lqi$2...@gxsn.com>...
since 1) he is young, and so his personality isn't immutable 2) I had
included him more for being representative for a class of players than for
his own merits--or lack thereof.
Gimpel
> In no particular order, and from my own personal experience only (and
> including some who are no longer among us):
>
> GM Lombardy
>
> GM Korchnoi
>
> IM Julio Kaplan
>
> GM Rossolimo
>
> GM Ed Lasker
>
> IM Shirazi
Outside the tournament hall, I was speaking to someone in a certain
"ethnic" language, and IM Shirazi, passing by,
made certain that I was aware of his disgust and contempt for me,
although he didn't say anything. I got the impression that he is an unkind
person.
I'd like to add to the list of nice guys: Smyslov and Tal.
>
>
> Some of my choices of people I don't know very well could be incorrect
> because I was lucky enough to meet them on a good day.
>
mbur...@montana.com
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In no particular order, and from my own personal experience only (and
> including some who are no longer among us):
>
> GM Lombardy
Born the same day, done business together, but he screwed me.
> GM Korchnoi
Met him in Lone Pine, liked him, but he is as full of shit as a
Christmas turkey.
> IM Julio Kaplan
LoOst to Julio in the final round of a big tourament. Once a friend
before a big argument over an employee of both of us. I was paying
more and had a daily deadline which Julio didn't respect.
> GM Rossolimo
Never met, but New York Taxi drivers are genearally okay.
> GM Ed Lasker
I think Ed may have only been an IM (I could be wrong) but I
corresponded with him in the early 80s and he was a true gentleman.
> IM Shirazi
Met in Lone Pine, but don't know
Max Burkett
Paul Mechem
DAVID GRANIK <dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:79optv$q...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>middling Junior player who was the US representative in the World Junior
Ch.
>in Calcutta. He had a mediocre result there... what a surprise for a player
>who has never even come close to winning a US Junior Ch. The US ought to
>send better representatives, like Irina Krush, or none at all.
>
>
Gads! I think we HAVE to stick Fischer at the top of the list. I would
personally also have to ad Gufeld... never before actually seen a grown man
_pout_ at a tournament.
As for nice guys...
David Bronstein - the only GM I ever actually got to speak with. Real nice
guy.
Mig
<plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Nice guys finish last"
"But they don't have all that spit on their backs"
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
guys....
But it seems to me that it's the nasty incidents that make news and travel
around the world. If a player is generally well-behaved and even charming, a
gentlemanly loser, who will tell the tale -- except in rare cases, you'll
never hear of it.
And so it's quite likely that even at the GM level there are dozens of
NiceGuy types, and we simply don't hear about it.
Also, if a GM has one bad day, the story may spread around the world and the
guy is on our BadGuy list. One bad story can eclipse years and years of good
behavior.
John Sloan
>
> 3. Kasparov [...snip...] His touch move
> against Polgar was a scandal.
What is the story on this?
JS
pulgao
This was covered pretty extensively at the time in Inside Chess (among
other publications). He moved a Knight, took his hand off it for a
split second, then grabbed the Knight and moved it to another square.
It was captured on video. Kasparov claimed his hand never left the
Knight, but the video showed his hand clearly leaving the piece.
I don't recall the exact tournament (and I'm too lazy to look it up --
heh). Linares 1994? Anyone remember?
Peter Coleman
Mig <m...@impsat1.comSBLOCK.ar> wrote in message
news:36c11a4b...@news.newsguy.com...
Eugene S. Thompson
Your "by line" says Seattle, WA. I live in Kirkland and might be in the
market for an instructor. Were you a *good* student on IM Minev? Do you
teach? Do you know of someone local that does (if you don't)?
Gene Thompson
gtho...@pin-corp.com
PS I would have responded to you directly, but your address seemed fake
(maybe to prevent spam). I was actually too lazy to try it.
Mike Cummings wrote in message ...
>In article <79pqh9$g5c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>>In no particular order, and from my own personal experience only (and
>>including some who are no longer among us):
>
John Sloan
>
> John Sloan <jsl...@telusplanet.net> was alleged to have uttered:
>
> >DAVID GRANIK wrote:
> >>
> >> 3. Kasparov [...snip...] His touch move
> >> against Polgar was a scandal.
> >
> >What is the story on this?
>
> This was covered pretty extensively at the time in Inside Chess (among
> other publications). He moved a Knight, took his hand off it for a
> split second, then grabbed the Knight and moved it to another square.
> It was captured on video. Kasparov claimed his hand never left the
> Knight, but the video showed his hand clearly leaving the piece.
What happened after that? Did he have to leave the knight where he'd
originally put it, or did he get to move it to the other square?
JS
Arthur Berger
>
>GM Ed Lasker
pulgao
>What happened after that? Did he have to leave the knight where he'd
>originally put it, or did he get to move it to the other square?
Judit was so stunned that she said nothing about it until after the
game. The Knight ended up where he put it (on the 2nd square).
James T Uren
I agree with some of the picks and disagree with others.
Regarding Raymond Keene, I'd like to point out that he
wrote (at least) one really really really good book--
Nimzovitch a Reappraisal. I think it went out of print
and is now available with another title.
This is a true labor of love and a joy to read.
Jim U
Peter Dorman
against Robatsch....
Peter Dorman
anti...@spam.demon.co.uk
> "Nice guys finish last"
I could imagine you actually saying that Peter :-)
How are things, CSi is slowly dying. Not been the same since Mitch left
:-(
--
Adios Amigo
Carl Tillotson
Lancashire Chess Association
homepage: http://www.lancashirechess.demon.co.uk/
Virtual Access 4.50 build 266 (32-bit)
Using Win98
Greg Kennedy
>>What happened after that? Did he have to leave the knight where he'd
>>originally put it, or did he get to move it to the other square?
>
>Judit was so stunned that she said nothing about it until after the
>game. The Knight ended up where he put it (on the 2nd square).
Important note: This tournament was played under FIDE rules which
means that it was the arbiter's responsibility to enforce the touch-
move rule, noy Judit's. Supposedly, she could not see the arbiter
because he was standing directly behind her. The end result was
that Garry cheated, and very well...
- Greg Kennedy
Jerry
wouldnt
want to spend any time with. I was really pretty shocked by Mr.
Granik's post.
Of course some of us, including me, say some pretty outrageous things
here,
and we must seem pretty crude. But I cant imagine why someone would
want to
attack a John Fedorowicz or a Dean Ippolito behind their backs. They are
both
nice people who have never had a bad word to say about anyone.
Eric Johnson
would never show favoritism to one player over another as Granik
suggests.
The other players werent exactly knocking down his door demanding a trip
to
India. Johnson followed the rules exactly. If he hadnt, at this or any
other time,
you would have heard about it here and you would have heard about it
from
someone with real information, not just groundless insinuations like
Granik.
Now I can see some people saying that Im changing sides and defending
Johnson
instead of attacking him. Firstly, I dont think that Eric has anything
to do
with the problems at the uscf office. Secondly, Im not a team player. I
am a
loose cannon, just like everyone who knows me says. That means I can
say whatever
I think is right. Ive never made a dime in chess and probably never
will. I
am fortunate to have made a number good friends and to consider the
people around
me in my local chess community to be like a family. And we can do
without Mr.
Granik's comments 7/24.
Jerry
Joe.D.Veal-1 wrote:
>
> gee...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > The only GM I ever met said (after NYC Intel Rapids, 1995) that Ivanchuk is a
> > nice guy...Among the WCs, Smyslov seems like a classy character.
> >
> > In article <36C034B4...@neo.lrun.com>,
> > Eric Fleet <cfl...@neo.lrun.com> wrote:
> > > Petrosian. Definitely a class-act and a nice guy.
> > >
> > > > David, any chance of balancing this post with your list of players who you
> > > > think are not jerks?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
Jerry
>
> Given that *your own site* shows him finishing mid-table in the 1998
> Junior championships (already missing some notable names) surely you can
> accept the comment about his relative strength and the inappropriateness
> of his selection.
Excuse me Peter. How do you know that the other players werent invited
first,
and turned down the invitation? Thats what I think happened. If anyone
had
been incorrectly passed over for the invitation, you would have heard
about it
here. You shouldnt assume that all the nonesense you see here is true.
Why
not ask Mr. Johnson how Ippolito was selected instead of jumping to
(false)
conclusions?
Jerry
>
> However I can't see why he should warrant a mention in a list of jerks.
> It's not his fault if he gets picked ahead of others more deserving. The
> selectors are the ones who should be appearing on the list.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Jerry <ch...@nystar.com> wrote in message
> news:36C079...@nystar.com...
> >DAVID GRANIK wrote:
> >
> ><deleted stuff>
> >
> >> 12. Ippolito-- This is the "Eric Johnson" special. Ippolito is a
> fair to
> >> middling Junior player who was the US representative in the World
> Junior Ch.
> >> in Calcutta. He had a mediocre result there... what a surprise for a
> player
> >> who has never even come close to winning a US Junior Ch. The US
> ought to
> >> send better representatives, like Irina Krush, or none at all.
> >
> >Whats wrong with you? Do you actually know any of the people you are
> >listing?
> >Is there anything that makes you qualified to comment on Dean
> Ippolito's
> >playing
> >strength, let alone to call him inappropriate names?
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >
> >
Jerry
> >Junior championships (already missing some notable names) surely you can
> >accept the comment about his relative strength and the inappropriateness
> >of his selection.
> >
> since 1) he is young, and so his personality isn't immutable 2) I had
> included him more for being representative for a class of players than for
> his own merits--or lack thereof.
what class of players? what on earth do you know about him?
I saw him play in the u.s. junior championship. it was very
clear that all of his competitors have every respect for his
playing strength and sportsmanship. I'm talking about the strongest
junior players in the USA. Who are you?
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
Wasn't he one of the original twelve? Remember there was no federation at the
time; the original title was just a word.
My choice of Ed Lasker cannot be incorrect because I knew him better than any
of the others on my list. Every day was a good day for him.
William Hyde
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <79t5tv$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Arthur Berger" <abe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I don't think Edward Lasker ever received the GM title.
>> >
>> >GM Ed Lasker
>> >Some of my choices of people I don't know very well could be incorrect
>> >because I was lucky enough to meet them on a good day.
>
> Wasn't he one of the original twelve? Remember there was no federation at the
> time; the original title was just a word.
The German chess federation used to hand out master
titles (the closest thing to an IM at the time) to
players who scored a given percentage in a tournament
composed of masters. Ed Lasker finished fifth or so
at Scheveningen just before the war (1913?) and thus
got the title.
When FIDE began retro-awarding titles in 1950, handing
out IM and GM titles to players who by consensus had
been of that strength even if they were no longer active,
(e.g. GM Duras) Lasker was somehow overlooked, not
getting his IM title until 1963, according to Oxford.
He was certainly of IM strength, but his only GM-like
result was his nearly drawn match with Marshall.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
Mike Cummings
I think she was a bit awestruck by playing the World Champion, too.
Sometimes we forget it's hard for a young person to stand up for
her/hisself in such an intimidating situation. As I recall, she said
something like that at the time.
--
Mike Cummings Seattle,WA
"The hit-and-run is the worst and dumbest play in baseball." - Earl Weaver
Peter Coleman
Chess. There aren't too many exceptions at the very top that break the
rule.
Things are going well, had a quiet 98, except for beating ICCF President
& IM Alan Borwell 1½-½ in a Scottish Teams Tournament (playing for the
aptly named 5 Brave Englishmen - brave and successful, we finished 1st),
but 99 is getting busy. Playing for England in the North Sea Teams,
including a TN game against FIDE IM Eirik Gullaksen, got a couple of
games against long-time ICCF IM George Pyrich in the Scottish Teams and
start play in the First EMail World Chess Championships on April 1
(hmm).
How's it hanging with you? >;->
--
Peter
<anti...@spam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.00000425.000a96e9@oemcomputer...
Peter Coleman
2. You need to change your settings, your odd line breaks make your
messages hard to read
--
Peter
<snip>
Peter Coleman
necessarily believe his reply as an involved party? I know nothing about
Mr Johnson, nor his role in selecting Mr Ippolito and have not mentioned
him by name.
However when I see a player picked to represent his country ahead of
half a dozen better qualified I think it's reasonable to ask the reason.
Maybe some couldn't make it. maybe all. But, if all the Juniors who had
a better claim agreed that they couldn't make it to India, I'd still be
asking "Why?". For instance, were the candidates forced to put their own
hands in their pockets?
Maybe I'm an old cynic but there have been plenty (read more than not)
of occasions inside chess and out where things other than the relative
(relevant) merits of the candidates has decided who gets picked.
--
Peter
Jerry <ch...@nystar.com> wrote in message
news:36C298...@nystar.com...
>Peter Coleman wrote:
>>
>> Given that *your own site* shows him finishing mid-table in the 1998
>> Junior championships (already missing some notable names) surely you
can
>> accept the comment about his relative strength and the
inappropriateness
>> of his selection.
>
Jerry
Im that I crossposted, but I was responding to a post which was
crossposted.
In rec.games.chess.politics we tend to respond if we have something to
say
about the contents of someones message and ignore it if we dont. Not to
say
that we dont say some silly things there too.
Jerry
Jerry
>
> I'm not sure how I would ask Mr Johnson. Even if I did would I
> necessarily believe his reply as an involved party? I know nothing about
> Mr Johnson, nor his role in selecting Mr Ippolito and have not mentioned
> him by name.
Are you the same person as Mr. Granik? That is who my post is addressed
to.
As far as I know, I was responding to a post that mentioned both Mr.
Ippolito
and Mr. Johnson by name. I dont think you have to take Mr. Johnson's
word
for anything. If someone had been cheated out of the right to
participate
in this tournament, you would be hearing from them.
>
> However when I see a player picked to represent his country ahead of
> half a dozen better qualified I think it's reasonable to ask the reason.
I think its okay to ask the reason too. Im sure Mr. Johnson could
answer that
better than I can. The post I was responding to was making a wild
accusation
rather than asking a question.
> Maybe some couldn't make it. maybe all. But, if all the Juniors who had
> a better claim agreed that they couldn't make it to India, I'd still be
> asking "Why?".
I did hear some discussion of this at the U.S. Junior. Most of them are
attending
college.
> For instance, were the candidates forced to put their own
> hands in their pockets?
No.
> Maybe I'm an old cynic but there have been plenty (read more than not)
> of occasions inside chess and out where things other than the relative
> (relevant) merits of the candidates has decided who gets picked.
Im very cynical too. But we're talking about a very public decision.
Its
not the kind of thing where any kind of funny business is likely.
Jerry
> --
> Peter
>
> Jerry <ch...@nystar.com> wrote in message
> news:36C298...@nystar.com...
> >Peter Coleman wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that *your own site* shows him finishing mid-table in the 1998
> >> Junior championships (already missing some notable names) surely you
> can
> >> accept the comment about his relative strength and the
> inappropriateness
> >> of his selection.
> >
> >Excuse me Peter. How do you know that the other players werent invited
> >first,
> >and turned down the invitation? Thats what I think happened. If
> anyone
> >had
> >been incorrectly passed over for the invitation, you would have heard
> >about it
> >here. You shouldnt assume that all the nonesense you see here is true.
> >Why
> >not ask Mr. Johnson how Ippolito was selected instead of jumping to
> >(false)
> >conclusions?
> >
Richard Reich
1 Yasser Seirawan
2 John Donaldson
3 Lev Alburt
4 Alex Baburin
5 IM Josh Manion
6 Greg Serper
7 Sam Palatnik
See, you don't have to be a ptzer to be a nice guy!
Richard Reich
DAVID GRANIK
Jerry wrote in message <36C3A6...@nystar.com>...
>Peter Coleman wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure how I would ask Mr Johnson. Even if I did would I
>> necessarily believe his reply as an involved party? I know nothing about
>> Mr Johnson, nor his role in selecting Mr Ippolito and have not mentioned
>> him by name.
>
>Are you the same person as Mr. Granik? That is who my post is addressed
>to.
No, he and I are not the same person, "Jerry". Certainly, I think
Mr.Coleman's posts make sense, but I'm not one to resort to pseudonyms. If
you post to a public forum, it is only reasable to assume that the public
might well respond to your posts. The best way to communicate directly with
me is simply to e-mail me. I'm not promising a response....
regards,
Mr. Granik
>As far as I know, I was responding to a post that mentioned both Mr.
>Ippolito
>and Mr. Johnson by name. I dont think you have to take Mr. Johnson's
>word
>for anything. If someone had been cheated out of the right to
>participate
>in this tournament, you would be hearing from them.
>
>>
>> However when I see a player picked to represent his country ahead of
>> half a dozen better qualified I think it's reasonable to ask the reason.
>
>I think its okay to ask the reason too.
You might be amazed to learn that Johnson DOES NOT think it/was OK to
ask the reason why Ippolito was chosen. Only happy talk and positive
postings are permissable in his Orwellian realm.
Jerry
>
> Jerry wrote in message <36C3A6...@nystar.com>...
> >Peter Coleman wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how I would ask Mr Johnson. Even if I did would I
> >> necessarily believe his reply as an involved party? I know nothing about
> >> Mr Johnson, nor his role in selecting Mr Ippolito and have not mentioned
> >> him by name.
> >
> >Are you the same person as Mr. Granik? That is who my post is addressed
> >to.
>
> No, he and I are not the same person, "Jerry". Certainly, I think
> Mr.Coleman's posts make sense, but I'm not one to resort to pseudonyms. If
> you post to a public forum, it is only reasable to assume that the public
> might well respond to your posts. The best way to communicate directly with
> me is simply to e-mail me. I'm not promising a response....
>
> regards,
> Mr. Granik
Thats okay. Ive said my piece. Im sure that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Ippolito
can take care of themselves. Jerry
Dullwitted Slug
>Here is my shot at the "nicest" guys in chess:
>
>I think it is important to mention however that I believe there are VERY few
>people who can be considered very "nice". There seems to be very few good
>and bad guys today, everything is not in black and white, but rather shades
>of gray.
>
>LIST OF THE "NICEST" TOP PLAYERS EVER IN CHESS:
>
>Paul Morphy
>Viswanathan Anand
>David Bronstein
>Paul Keres
>Tigran Petrosian
>Boris Spassky
>Isidor Gunsberg
>Mark Taimanov
>Max Euwe
>
>DOES ANYONE THINK THIS LIST IS GOOD?
>
This is a very refreshing thread.
I am a total outsider, just a fan, but from what little I have read
and heard, aren't Vishy Anand, Judit Polgar and Vladimir Kramnik all
considered to be genuinely nice people, treating everyone fairly and
well?
And hasn't Shirov comported himself very well, especially considering
what he has gone through with the championship match that fell
through?
Peter Coleman
--
Peter
Richard Reich <rmr...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:79vr79$10jg$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Peter Coleman
same NG. Not the same (at least to anyone incapable of doublethink).
I stay out of .politics for that very reason....
;)
--
Peter
Jerry <ch...@nystar.com> wrote in message
news:36C3A0...@nystar.com...
>Peter Coleman wrote:
>>
>> 1. You're repeating yourself
>> 2. You need to change your settings, your odd line breaks make your
>> messages hard to read
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Im that I crossposted, but I was responding to a post which was
>crossposted.
>In rec.games.chess.politics we tend to respond if we have something to
>say
>about the contents of someones message and ignore it if we dont. Not
to
>say
>that we dont say some silly things there too.
>
>Jerry
>
Dullwitted Slug
<plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Nice guys finish last"
Leo Durocher always claimed he was misquoted, in that punctuation was
omitted. He claims that when he was asked about the Giants he replied
in two short sentences: "Nice guys. Finish last."
anti...@spam.demon.co.uk
> Well, the quote's not mine - but it certainly seems to hold true in
> Chess. There aren't too many exceptions at the very top that break the
> rule.
That much is true :-)
> Things are going well, had a quiet 98, except for beating ICCF President
> & IM Alan Borwell 1½-½ in a Scottish Teams Tournament (playing for the
> aptly named 5 Brave Englishmen - brave and successful, we finished 1st),
> but 99 is getting busy. Playing for England in the North Sea Teams,
> including a TN game against FIDE IM Eirik Gullaksen, got a couple of
> games against long-time ICCF IM George Pyrich in the Scottish Teams and
> start play in the First EMail World Chess Championships on April 1
> (hmm).
You seem to be holding in there, IM's at ICCF level is quite a step up I
would guess from the likes of us mere mortals on CSi. I still can't fathom
out how you won those two games we had. I was naive to think I was holding
my own and you go and turn the thumbscrew <vbg>.
> How's it hanging with you? >;->
Well I am finding less time to concentrate on Chess these days, my only
excursions into e-mail is with the CSi OPEN tournaments. I can console
myself that I have got to the finals each year, but I always end up about
mid-table in the final itself. Finally got back up to 1700 again, that was
after I had to resign 24 games en-mass and my grade went through the
floor. Since I started again I made a promise of no more than 6 at a time,
so I have slowly got back up. My IEEC grade never fell, mainly because I
stick to about 2 a year on the IECC - currently it is running at 1798 I
think. It's all relative of course, I did have a good game against
Heinreich Beutal but he has been free falling recently so who knows.
Anyway I am busily reading through a Bondarevsky book kindly given to me
by Gilbert Palmer - not a bad read. I am spending a lot of my free time
with the juniors, we have a good crowd at the moment and I think we shall
be challenging the likes of Essex and Richmond soon - well nearly <vbg>.
Last year Lancashire were the best placed Northern County. I know it
doesn't say much for the chess, but we don't have the resources that a
Richmond can muster. I mean Luke McShane IIRC gets sponsorship of £10,000
a year - I would just love that much to spend on training sessions for
the kids, I am sure we could get quite a few IMs and GMs out of the system
for that kind of cash <vbg>.
Anyway, I get some perverse pleasure out of the kids telling me where I am
going wrong in my chess games (goes to show they are listening!)
Bye for now bud!
Abenr
>I don't think Edward Lasker ever received the GM title.
>>
>>GM Ed Lasker
>>Some of my choices of people I don't know very well could be incorrect
>>because I was lucky enough to meet them on a good day.
*Edward* Lasker never received the GM title, and there is much doubt that he
was of IM strength, though given the title by FIDE in 1963. *Edward* should
not be confused with *Emanuel* Lasker, the great world champion, who held that
title from 1894-1921. Yes, 27 years! Edward and Emanuel were not related in
any way.
flum
world's best "professionals" in the span of about a year and a half. As he
did this, he repeatedly emphasized his amateur status, refusing prize money
and even buying gifts for his opponents.
Most of the professionals Morphy beat had to scrounge for livings in
fields unrelated to chess; would anyone have protested if any one of them
had referred to himself as an "amateur"? Morphy himself was wealthy and
had no outside profession at the time. He had full time to devote to
chess, certainly more time to devote to it than any of his opponents.
Staunton, that evil cad, even pointed out that other players had real-life
responsibilities and couldn't run around all over England and Paris the way
Morphy did at will, playing whenever they felt the urge. Anderssen,
Morphy's strongest opponent, travelled from Breslau to Paris to devote a
short vacation to play his match with Morphy; Morphy had already been in
Paris for quite some time and was much the better-rested of the two when
they played.
Morphy's "amateurism" didn't prevent him from accepting $3000 a year --
a huge salary in the 1850s and 60s -- to write a chess column or to make
paid commercial endorsements.
It seems to me that Morphy's repeated insistence upon styling himself as
an amateur served mainly to belittle his opponents, whether intentional or
not. Also, there was the time later on when Steinitz was in New Orleans
and Morphy agreed to meet him only on the condition that they not discuss
chess. He was retired from the game at the time but still followed it and
surely understood that Steinitz was the world champion, at least among
active players. A nice guy might have made a public statement to this
effect.
Maybe I have it all wrong and he was a nice guy. But I really do
wonder.
DAVID GRANIK
Gilbert Palmer wrote in message
<79pau7$i3p$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>David, any chance of balancing this post with your list of players who you
>think are not jerks?
>
well
>telling us about your nominations in a negative category, what about the
>positive category? Who do you admire?
>
>Cheers
>
>Gilbert Palmer
Since you ask...
Nice guys and gals among world class chess players:
1.Bronstein
2.Smyslov
3.Lillienthal
4.Hodgson
5.Polgar sisters
6.Shirov
7.Anand
8.S.Mohr
9.Serper
10.Shaked
11.Leko
12.D.Gurevich
13. I. Sokolov
etc. these players were the first to come to mind; there are many nice
players in chess! (which is why the jerks stand out)
and among the dead...
Tal ,Euwe,Najdorf, and Stein were all reputed to be nice.
>
>DAVID GRANIK wrote in message <79optv$q...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>In order to qualify for the list, the player in question must possess a
>FIDE
>>title....
>
>
>[post snipped]
>
>
>
>
Peter Coleman
last" ?
--
Peter
Dullwitted Slug <mrfea...@nospamemail.com> wrote in message
news:36c49f18.7530257@news...
Jerry
>
> There's crossposting and there's posting the same reply twice in the
> same NG. Not the same (at least to anyone incapable of doublethink).
>
> I stay out of .politics for that very reason....
>
> ;)
>
> --
> Peter
whatever :)
Jerry
>
> Jerry <ch...@nystar.com> wrote in message
> news:36C3A0...@nystar.com...
> >Peter Coleman wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. You're repeating yourself
> >> 2. You need to change your settings, your odd line breaks make your
> >> messages hard to read
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >Im that I crossposted, but I was responding to a post which was
> >crossposted.
> >In rec.games.chess.politics we tend to respond if we have something to
> >say
> >about the contents of someones message and ignore it if we dont. Not
> to
> >say
> >that we dont say some silly things there too.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
Andrew Jacobs
your assertion that he would "belittle" his opponents. His opting to be
an amateur was due to his background and duty to his family. It was not
appropriate for a Southern gentleman of his time and class to be a
professional chess player, any more than a card shark or billiard hustler.
No chess champion in history was more respectful toward his opponents than
Morphy. He never even responded to Staunton's printed calumnies. Please
show us one word of criticism of Morphy's conduct by any of the players who
actually faced him.
flum <yaro...@together.net> wrote in article
<01be5711$18acf040$1f0a5bd1@eid-w-s>...
Bob Stringer
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:38:43 -0000, "Peter Coleman"
> <plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Nice guys finish last"
>
> Leo Durocher always claimed he was misquoted, in that punctuation was
> omitted. He claims that when he was asked about the Giants he replied
> in two short sentences: "Nice guys. Finish last."
I remember Durocher being asked about it during the time he coached the
Cubs. He said that during an interview he nodded in the direction of the
team they were playing that day (he was coaching the Giants at the time,
I believe) and said something to the effect: "Look at them. All of them
nice guys, and they're going to finish last." Bit different from how the
quote is remembered.
Bob Stringer
--
To reply, please delete
REMOVE from my address
smith...@my-dejanews.com
and with good reason.
After all, everyone who knew him thought it was a big joke. I read
somewhere that once a girl he fancied was with him, and she found out
about his chess playing, she laughed in his face.
Back then, a professional chessplayer to them was like a saying today
you are professional garbage man.
But, putting aside all of the humilition and teasing Morphy has to
to unfairly undergo by all of those self-rightous pigs that made
him feel bad, including the bitch that laughed at him, he was a very
nice individual. A "Vincent Van Gough" of chess you may say, not
appreciated until after death.
In article <01be5711$18acf040$1f0a5bd1@eid-w-s>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rahvinsong
strong player.
Rosie Mac
>somewhere that once a girl he fancied was with him, and she found out
>about his chess playing, she laughed in his face.
So what? I would laugh as well, I mean it is hardly a classic line is it? "Hey honey wanna come back to my place and fool around with my chess board?" I don't think so.
>to unfairly undergo by all of those self-rightous pigs that made
>him feel bad, including the bitch that laughed at him, he was a very
>nice individual.
That 'bitch'. Why unfair? Is any woman that laughs at a man who fancies her when he says he is a chessplayer is a bitch? Trouble is, the bitch probably didn't fancy him even if he was a nice individual, and he was probably just confirming her suspicion "This guy looks, sounds, dresses and smells like a chessplayer...God he is a chessplayer" Ha ha ha.What do you expect?Do you think a girl should just roll on the floor with her legs in the air when he proclaimed he was a chessplayer? "Pork away pal..."*^_^*
Rosie
Anders Thulin
Rosie Mac <rosi...@virgin.net> wrote:
>smith...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message =
><7a8u88$71g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>>After all, everyone who knew him thought it was a big joke. I read
>>somewhere that once a girl he fancied was with him, and she found out
>>about his chess playing, she laughed in his face.
>
> So what? I would laugh as well, I mean it is hardly a classic line =
>is it?
Do you take into account that that line was said (if at all) around
1850, and with a certain difference in social values?
--
Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 013-23 55 32
Telia ProSoft AB, Teknikringen 6, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Rosie Mac
Dear Anders,Nice name by the way. My first reply! Oh! Good and he's Swedish.
>1850, and with a certain difference in social values?
I took this into account. I am not saying she was correct to laugh....poor poor Morphy. But for the love of Mary why don't you debate the issue here?Didn't she have the right to laugh? HA HA HA.And just because she did she gets labelled a 'bitch' by the previous poster. IYSWIM.Was he or was he not out of order? I ask you?I know Anders that you speak English well. But:Did you take into account how offensive the word 'bitch' sounds?I do not suffer from Dromophobia you know, I am quite prepared to change my mind...if persuaded.
Now do you wanna debate the issue or get thumped or what?
*^_^*
Rosie
BMarche100
Yes, I agree, that the poster was out of line to say that remark.
But, perhaps the poster is foriegn? And is not accustomed to using that word in
such a vicious manner the way it sounded, or isn't that knowledable of it
anyway.
Regards,
Ben
Rosie Mac
>
>Yes, I agree, that the poster was out of line to say that remark.
At last, whew!
>
>But, perhaps the poster is foriegn? And is not accustomed to using that word in
>such a vicious manner the way it sounded, or isn't that knowledable of it
>anyway.
Maybe your right.But I also got some HATE mail, telling me I was a bitch too! For saying chessplayers are not always a hit with the girls.I reckon chessplayers are nice but there are some who just don't seem to understand about how to taalk, wash, wear proper clothes or to talk to or about a girl. you know? (NOT ALL OF COURSE NOT ALL! presnet company totally excepted of course)
So hope this helps the : to the some of you:
Why do some chessplayers dress and smell the way they do?
Spending so much time playing and studying and travelling around to tournaments I guess some of you do not get much of a chance to have look in a mirror.
So here are Rosie’s tips: HTH.
Hygiene. Okay it might be a pain in the butt but no-one ever died of smelling nice, please oh please wash! And for the love of Mary put on some anti-perspirant or deodorant afterwards. You perhaps can’t smell yourself but we can. I’m serious.
When you shave, try and get all of the hair of your cheeks, all of it. You don't get women shaving only half their l;eg now do you?
Try and wear CLEAN clothes. Yuck to all you nerdy types who wear dirty yucky clothes.
Old I don’t mind, untidy I don’t mind, dirty I MIND.
If you are playing a weekend congress, for the love of Mary don’t wear the same shirt on all three days, yuck. Things will be growing.
If you have to wear jeans – remember the Golden Rule - always wear a belt.
No woman, anywhere can stand to see these guys who wear jeans without belts. Didn't your mummies tell you this?
The belt should always be the same colour as your footwear. So jeans and black boots – wear a black belt, jeans and brown shoes / boots, wear a brown belt. HTH.
If you must wear sneakers / baseball boots make sure the are spotless, dirty sneakers are even worse than dirty clothes. NEVER wear white sneakers. PLEAASE. You can purchase odour-eaters at Woolworths you know.
Don't ever EVER wear anything with a hood. Yuck. buy a cap.
Wash your hair regularly in a brand name shampoo, not just soap or shower gel. This should be done EVERY DAY. I'm serious.
If you look good, you feel good. and if you feel good you play better. Simple. Plus if you don't smell, wear clean clothes and have clean hair you might even get a chess playing girlfriend who isn't pear-shaped and sad herself, though obviously not one as thoughtful as me.
HTH
*^_^*
Rosie
anti...@spam.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Rosie dear - get a decent news reader please.
Oh by the way - if I want to smell like shit I will do so, after all I
am not going to the local congress to "pull a burd" as we scruffy chaps
might say.
If I sound a bit of a nasty shit, it's probably because I am :-)
--
Adios Amigo
Carl Tillotson
Lancashire Chess Association
homepage: http://www.lancashirechess.demon.co.uk/
Virtual Access 4.50 build 266 (32-bit)
Using Win98
anti...@spam.demon.co.uk
> But, perhaps the poster is foriegn? And is not accustomed to using that word in
> such a vicious manner the way it sounded
You should be more careful with your phrases. Some 'foreigners' could take this
as typical "American Isolationist" shit !
Did it ever occur that perhaps the poster knew EXACTLY what he/she was saying.
It's a rough old world out there you know <vbg>.
Rosie Mac
anti...@spam.demon.co.uk wrote in message ...
>In article <7aei24$ero$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>, Rosie Mac
>wrote:
>
>Rosie dear - get a decent news reader please.
Is this better?
>
>Oh by the way - if I want to smell like shit I will do so, after all I
>am not going to the local congress to "pull a burd" as we scruffy chaps
>might say.
Eeeeeee yuch. Have you ever sat beside a player who honks? Well I
did and it isn't nice.
But you probably play upa junction or two from me, so I won't get
the opp to have a whiff.
Scruffy I don't mind, dirty I MIND.
>
>If I sound a bit of a nasty shit, it's probably because I am :-)
I forgive you. I'm a real nasy shit too. Plased to meet you I'm
sure.
So how often do you wash then? Once twice a season?
Only when you win / lose / agree peace?
*>_<*
Rosie
anti...@spam.demon.co.uk
> >Rosie dear - get a decent news reader please.
>
> Is this better?
Marginally, believe me it makes a world of difference. The problem with
Outlook is that it always looks nice from your end, but when it gets to a
character based system - Yuk!
> Eeeeeee yuch. Have you ever sat beside a player who honks? Well I
> did and it isn't nice.
No I haven't, wouldn't have heard him "honking" though because of my
deafness. Sorry, you don't mean "honking" as in the sound <vbg>. I once
played against a scruffy bugger who was pissed as a fart at 10am in the
morning, and was drinking Tennents Extra Strength at the time.
Of course it was offputting, but it is his life, and I have not right to
impose my view of what is right/wrong about his "social" behaviour.
> But you probably play upa junction or two from me, so I won't get
> the opp to have a whiff.
> Scruffy I don't mind, dirty I MIND.
OK, I accept that a whiff can be off putting. With this in mind I recall
driving all the way back from a county match with a player in the back of the
car who STANK!
Hell, it is is life, and if it didn't bother him then I wasn't going to
preach him about it. Oh, he also won his game which won the match - maybe the
competitive streak in me kept the whiff at bay.
> >If I sound a bit of a nasty shit, it's probably because I am :-)
>
> I forgive you. I'm a real nasy shit too. Plased to meet you I'm
> sure.
Glad to see you have a sense of humour <vbg> - but your message did come
across as pontificating. Truce !
> So how often do you wash then? Once twice a season?
My wife would divorce me if I didn't get washed at least once every couple of
days. I also play squash regularly so have my fair supply of cleansing
showers thanks :-)
Have fun!
Hope to run into one of your other illuminating comments shortly, no love
lost eh :-)
Pit Schulenburg
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Wasn't he [Ed Lasker] one of the original twelve [Grandmasters]? Remember
there
>was no federation at the time; the original title was just a word.
It愀 kind of a never ending story: Somebody (and I惴 afraid it愀 YOU) is
mixing up Edward Lasker (1885-1981) and former World Champion Dr. Emanuel
Lasker (1868-1941).
Pit
>My choice of Ed Lasker cannot be incorrect because I knew him better than
any
>of the others on my list. Every day was a good day for him.
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
"Pit Schulenburg" <Pit.Sch...@knuut.de> wrote:
>
> gnohm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Wasn't he [Ed Lasker] one of the original twelve [Grandmasters]? Remember
>
Don't be silly.
ISTR that there were said to be twelve the first time the word was used; and
everybody at NY 1924 was one of the 12.
Beautiful picture in the tournament book of Ed and the champ. Hard to mix
them up.
Bob Stringer
My understanding is that there were an original five, not twelve. In the 1914
St. Petersburg tournament, the first five players qualified for a double round
robin final. They were Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall. At
the concluding banquet, the czar toasted the five as the grandmasters of chess.
pulgao
>ISTR that there were said to be twelve the first time the word was used; and
>everybody at NY 1924 was one of the 12.
Not true. First, there were only five original grandmasters. The five
finalists at the 1914 St. Petersburg tournament were awarded the title
by Czar Nicholas II. Those players were: Emanuel Lasker (world
champion at the time), Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Marshall.
However, it did not become an "official" title (with specified
requirements) until after World War II. From 1914 until the start of
FIDE, pretty much any strong player was referred to as a
"grandmaster".
Second, the NY 1924 tournament was supposed to be strictly for
national champions. However, there were quite a few invitees that
couldn't or wouldn't make it to the event. In fact, they had a hard
time filling the roster, which is why Edward Lasker was invited to
play. He was close (here in the U.S.), so there were no travel
problems that had hampered some of the other invitees from attending,
and he was available (he comitted in advance to playing in the event).
This is why there were only 11 players at the event (which is such a
weird number) -- several additional strong players were invited but
declined to attend.
Side note: Edward Lasker was included to "round out" the field, but
they still wound up with only 11 players. A 12th player cancelled at
the last minute. I forget who this was -- Davide Marotti, maybe?
No disrespect to Edward Lasker's memory (I have a close friend who was
an old go opponent of Lasker's and by *all* accounts Lasker was a
helluva nice guy) but he was clearly not up to the calibre of the
other players in the event. As a few of you already know, I've studied
the NY 1924 games pretty closely, and I'm completely baffled by some
of his play. He made moves occasionally that an average club player
would question and IMHO was lucky to have finished ahead of Janowski.
-- Steve Lopez
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/index.html
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
Bob Stringer <REMOVE...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> gnohm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <7assjf$5cn$1...@goof.de.uu.net>,
> > "Pit Schulenburg" <Pit.Sch...@knuut.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > gnohm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Wasn't he [Ed Lasker] one of the original twelve [Grandmasters]? Remember
> > >
> > > It愀 kind of a never ending story: Somebody (and I惴 afraid it愀 YOU) is
> > > mixing up Edward Lasker (1885-1981) and former World Champion [snip]
> >
> > Don't be silly.
> >
> > everybody at NY 1924 was one of the 12.
> >
> > them up.
According to this history site, the "first" was too early for him to have
possibly been one of the originals; but since it was an unofficial thing, no
doubt there are several sources of "original GMs".
>
> My understanding is that there were an original five, not twelve. In the 1914
> St. Petersburg tournament, the first five players qualified for a double round
> robin final. They were Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall. At
> the concluding banquet, the czar toasted the five as the grandmasters of chess.
http://misc.traveller.com/chess/history/1900-1930.html
1907 GM; Title of grandmaster was 1st used at the Ostend tournament.
1914.05.22 Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, confers the grandmaster title to 5
finalists.
William Hyde
> finalists at the 1914 St. Petersburg tournament were awarded the title
> by Czar Nicholas II.
Not that he had any authority to do so. Strong players
had been called GMs for decades.
> Second, the NY 1924 tournament was supposed to be strictly for
> national champions. However, there were quite a few invitees that
> couldn't or wouldn't make it to the event. In fact, they had a hard
> time filling the roster, which is why Edward Lasker was invited to
> play.
He was also invited because he had nearly drawn his
recent match with Marshall. In fact, Marshall had
had to resort to some quasi-legal actions to win
the match. Ed Lasker and Marshall were no longer
on speaking terms (a factor you might wish to include
in your book).
> No disrespect to Edward Lasker's memory (I have a close friend who was
> an old go opponent of Lasker's and by *all* accounts Lasker was a
> helluva nice guy) but he was clearly not up to the calibre of the
> other players in the event. As a few of you already know, I've studied
> the NY 1924 games pretty closely, and I'm completely baffled by some
> of his play. He made moves occasionally that an average club player
> would question and IMHO was lucky to have finished ahead of Janowski.
I would hesitate to say this. Sure, he was (along with
Yates) an IM in an all GM event (though Janowski was long
past his prime), but he didn't do so badly. He even won
a prize for the best score made against the top five
by a non prizewinner. He played very creatively but with
a strong tendency to blunder, typical of strong but
amateur players. Before finishing your book you should
really look at the event through his eyes, in his
"Chess Secrets".
Last place was certainly in the cards for him,
but then, so was beating Lasker (NB, Alekhine's notes
to this game are incorrect, don't rely on them
for an evalution of the crisis of the game).
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
pulgao
> Not that he had any authority to do so. Strong players
> had been called GMs for decades.
Sure, but these days it's generally accepted that the original five
are the first "official" holders of the title. I'm just going by
today's convention.
>
> He was also invited because he had nearly drawn his
> recent match with Marshall. In fact, Marshall had
> had to resort to some quasi-legal actions to win
> the match. Ed Lasker and Marshall were no longer
> on speaking terms (a factor you might wish to include
> in your book).
Thanks, I'll make a note of that. Actually, I don't have him speaking
too much to *anyone* -- Tartakower seldom comes up for air. ;-)
>
> I would hesitate to say this. Sure, he was (along with
> Yates) an IM in an all GM event (though Janowski was long
> past his prime), but he didn't do so badly. He even won
> a prize for the best score made against the top five
> by a non prizewinner. He played very creatively but with
> a strong tendency to blunder, typical of strong but
> amateur players.
"Strong tendency" is correct. I sometimes find myself looking at one
of his moves and saying "What the ****??!!??" Don't ask me which game
(they're all a blur at this point), but in a "recent" game (Round 13,
14, or 15, I think) he just threw away a won game with an endgame
blunder that would have been obvious to any club player. There may
well have been extenuating circumstances of some kind, but there's no
way to tell today.
I wasn't suggesting that he was a complete patzer -- he could
certainly clean my clock if he was still around and playing. I just
thought he was a bit overmatched in the event. F.D. Yates (who today
isn't especially highly regarded) played much more consistent chess
than Edward Lasker (which surprised me -- I had always considered
Yates something of a fish, but he's better than I initially thought).
> Before finishing your book you should
> really look at the event through his eyes, in his
> "Chess Secrets".
Thanks for the recommendation. He also wrote a nice two-part article
about the event in the spring of 1974 in Chess Life that's ben pretty
helpful.
>
> Last place was certainly in the cards for him,
> but then, so was beating Lasker (NB, Alekhine's notes
> to this game are incorrect, don't rely on them
> for an evalution of the crisis of the game).
I hardly use Alekhine's notes anymore. I referred to them in the first
few rounds, but now I just check them for "behind the scenes" color.
There are some interesting tidbits from time to time (he completely
screwed up one of his own games by paying too much attention to
another game being played by Dr. Lasker) but his analysis isn't very
useful to my particular audience (beginning players).
William, thanks for the interesting and thoughtful post!
Pit Schulenburg
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com schrieb in Nachricht
<7aukag$hoo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7assjf$5cn$1...@goof.de.uu.net>,
> "Pit Schulenburg" <Pit.Sch...@knuut.de> wrote:
>>
>> gnohm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >Wasn't he [Ed Lasker] one of the original twelve [Grandmasters]?
Remember
>>
>> It愀 kind of a never ending story: Somebody (and I惴 afraid it愀 YOU) is
>> mixing up Edward Lasker (1885-1981) and former World Champion [snip]
>
>Don't be silly.
>
>ISTR that there were said to be twelve the first time the word was used;
and
>everybody at NY 1924 was one of the 12.
>
>Beautiful picture in the tournament book of Ed and the champ. Hard to mix
>them up.
Okay, you didn愒 mix them up, though you did everything to make it look
like. Compared to many of his contemporarians, Ed Lasker was definitely not
a strong player (cf. the other posts).
As an aside to Bob愀 and Steve愀 posts, I quote from the (very reliable)
Oxford Companion To Chess; Oxford University Press, 1984, p132:
GRANDMASTER, an over-the-board player of the highest class, a description
commonly used before 1950 when FIDE introduced the formal title
International Grandmaster. A correspondent writing to "Bell愀 Life" 18 Feb.
1838 refers to Lewis as "our past grand master", probably the first use of
this term in connection with chess Subsequently G. Walker and others
referred to Philidor as a grandmaster, and a few other players were so
entitled. The word gained wider currency in the early 20th century when
tournaments were sometimes designated grandmaster events, e.g. Ostend 1907,
San Sebastian 1912.
Pit (not that silly)
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
baays...@intrepid.net (pulgao) wrote:
> No disrespect to Edward Lasker's memory (I have a close friend who w
> helluva nice guy) but he was clearly not up to the calibre of the
> other players in the event. As a few of you already know, I've studi
> would question and IMHO was lucky to have finished ahead of Janowski
Although he only played seriously for a decade or two early in his life, he
had quite an impressive collection of trophies, at least one from each decade
up to at least the 1960s and maybe up to the 1970s; and the trophies were for
winning tournaments like the Marshall CC championship, which would never have
been won by anybody near minimum master strength, not even in its weakest
years. Not bad for an old guy who didn't play much any more.
Of course, those performances weren't GM strength, but on the other hand I've
made the acquaintance of a number of GMs whose play had declined to the point
where they couldn't have done as well, so who can say?
Anyway, it's sad to hear he isn't considered to have been a GM, despite
having finished (in NY 1924) ahead of a guy who had numerous championship
matches. (I don't think Janowski was all that strong compared to the other
leading lights.)
===
BTW, say hi to your friend for me. Possibly we've met.
pulgao
>In article <36d2ff85...@news.intrepid.net>,
> baays...@intrepid.net (pulgao) wrote:
>> No disrespect to Edward Lasker's memory (I have a close friend who w
>> an old go opponent of Lasker's and by *all* accounts Lasker was a
>> helluva nice guy) but he was clearly not up to the calibre of the
>> other players in the event. As a few of you already know, I've studi
>> of his play. He made moves occasionally that an average club player
>> would question and IMHO was lucky to have finished ahead of Janowski
>
>Although he only played seriously for a decade or two early in his life, he
>had quite an impressive collection of trophies, at least one from each decade
>up to at least the 1960s and maybe up to the 1970s; and the trophies were for
>winning tournaments like the Marshall CC championship, which would never have
>been won by anybody near minimum master strength, not even in its weakest
>years. Not bad for an old guy who didn't play much any more.
Actually, he was fairly young at the time of NY1924 -- check the
photos in the tournament book. I think he was still developing as a
player at the time of the tournament.
I'm really not trying to bust on Edward Lasker. He was a fine player,
no doubt. I just think that in the spring of 1924 he was a bit
overmatched by the men he was playing.
>
>Of course, those performances weren't GM strength, but on the other hand I've
>made the acquaintance of a number of GMs whose play had declined to the point
>where they couldn't have done as well, so who can say?
>
>Anyway, it's sad to hear he isn't considered to have been a GM, despite
>having finished (in NY 1924) ahead of a guy who had numerous championship
>matches. (I don't think Janowski was all that strong compared to the other
>leading lights.)
Janowski was in *serious* decline in 1924. His best days were far
behind him. He had a *serious* gambling problem -- he once won a
tournament in Monte Carlo, blew the prize money at the roulette wheel,
and fans took up a collection to raise the money for him to be able to
travel home.
However, Janowski was (at one time) one of the most feared tacticians
in chess. Check out some of his games from 1900 to 1915 -- he played
some amazing combinations. He was a truly great player in his day.
But that ability was gone by 1924 -- and he knew it, too. Take a look
at the photos in the tournament book. The anguish is written all over
his face. It caused some bad behavior, too -- after one game in which
Marshall swindled a win, Janowski swept the pieces from the board and
screamed at Marshall that he could give him Knight odds and still beat
him. I don't know what event this took place at, but it's a great
story that gives a lot of insight into what Janowski was going
through, so I included it in my book as an event from NY 1924.
By the way, don't take the banter between the players in my book as
gospel. A lot of it is stuff I've seen at tournaments and included as
a way of fleshing out the characters' personalities. No one has
objected too strenuously to this. A player I admire wrote me a nice
e-mail presenting his case that Capablanca and Alekhine were actually
pretty friendly with each other. I really respect this guy and hated
to disagree with him, but all of the contemporary sources I've seen
indicate that Capa and Alekhine hated each other's guts.
>BTW, say hi to your friend for me. Possibly we've met.
I haven't seen him in a few years. His name's Bob McAllister. He lives
in Winchester, VA and plays at the Winchester Chess Club (of which I
was a member for a couple of years -- that's how we met). When Bob
heard about the book I was writing, he graciously invited me to his
home and showed me his collection of Edward Lasker memorabilia,
including some personal letters Lasker wrote to him, signed photos,
etc. Bob also read the first 10% or so of the book and told me that
I'd hit Lasker's characterization spot on, which encouraged me to
flesh out the other characters still further. Bob was pretty close
with Lasker for a few years, but they played a lot of go instead of
chess. Bob's a good player himself -- he was a USCF master many years
ago when he still played tournament chess.
gnohm...@my-dejanews.com
baays...@intrepid.net (pulgao) wrote:
> No disrespect to Edward Lasker's memory (I have a close friend who w
> an old go opponent of Lasker's and by *all* accounts Lasker was a
> helluva nice guy) but he was clearly not up to the calibre of the
> other players in the event. As a few of you already know, I've studi
> of his play. He made moves occasionally that an average club player
> would question and IMHO was lucky to have finished ahead of Janowski
Although he only played seriously for a decade or two early in his life, he
had quite an impressive collection of trophies, at least one from each decade
up to at least the 1960s and maybe up to the 1970s; and the trophies were for
winning tournaments like the Marshall CC championship, which would never have
been won by anybody near minimum master strength, not even in its weakest
years. Not bad for an old guy who didn't play much any more.
Of course, those performances weren't GM strength, but on the other hand I've
made the acquaintance of a number of GMs whose play had declined to the point
where they couldn't have done as well, so who can say?
Anyway, it's sad to hear he isn't considered to have been a GM, despite
having finished (in NY 1924) ahead of a guy who had numerous championship
matches. (I don't think Janowski was all that strong compared to the other
leading lights.)
===
BTW, say hi to your friend for me. Possibly we've met.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mbur...@montana.com
> > baays...@intrepid.net (pulgao) wrote:
> >> No disrespect to Edward Lasker's memory (I have a close friend who w
> >> an old go opponent of Lasker's and by *all* accounts Lasker was a
> >> helluva nice guy) but he was clearly not up to the calibre of the
> >> other players in the event.
Marshall had his hands full with him in 1923. He was engineer (Sears &
Roebuck, I believe) and a really nice guy. I had the good fortune to
correspond briefly with him ~1980.
> Actually, he was fairly young at the time of NY1924 -- check the
> photos in the tournament book. I think he was still developing as a
> player at the time of the tournament.
I believe that was the last big tournament in which he played. He was
about 35-40 at the time.
Max Burkett
pulgao
>I believe that was the last big tournament in which he played. He was
>about 35-40 at the time.
You're right -- he was about 40. I stand corrected. He looks much
younger than that in the photos.
B76215
>was of IM strength, though given the title by FIDE in 1963. *Edward* should
>not be confused with *Emanuel* Lasker, the great world champion, who held
>that
>title from 1894-1921. Yes, 27 years! Edward and Emanuel were not related in
>any way.
I always thought that Edward was Emanuel's cousin.
I like Lasker, but in my opinion, the best world champion ever I think is Garry
Kasparov. Just my opinion though.
Regards.