Kasparov V Karpov
ChessFire
Kasparov, since Karpov is currently not doing well in a tournament,
check out the following results of their encounters, especially the
last one. Phil Innes
====
There have been many great rivalries in sport. But which is the
greatest rivalry in chess history? Would it be Kasparov vs. Karpov?
Here are the records in their head to head world championship matches:
Moscow 1984-1985: Karpov - Kasparov (5W - 3L - 40D)
Moscow 1985: Kasparov - Karpov (5W - 3L - 16D)
London - Leningrad 1986: Kasparov - Karpov (5W - 4L - 15D)
Seville 1987: Kasparov - Karpov (4W - 4L - 16D)
New York - Lyon 1990: Kasparov - Karpov (4W - 3L - 17D)
Total: Kasparov won 21 - Karpov won 19 - 104 games were drawn
In their last (friendly) match in NY City, Karpov won 2.5 - 1.5.
Chess news from Susan Polgar
RayLopez99
>
> There have been many great rivalries in sport. But which is the
> greatest rivalry in chess history? Would it be Kasparov vs. Karpov?
>
Yeah they were evenly matched. And Karpov did win that first
encounter, correctly stopped by Campomares.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> Kasparov, since Karpov is currently not doing well in a tournament,
> check out the following results of their encounters, especially the
> last one. Phil Innes
>
> ====
>
> There have been many great rivalries in sport. But which is the
> greatest rivalry in chess history? Would it be Kasparov vs. Karpov?
You could definitely make a very good case for it. Last I checked,
they had played more serious high-level chess against each other than
other two players in history, something like 175 match and tournament
games, eclipsing long ago the previous record, which as I recall was
96 games between Botvinnik and Smyslov. They played for the world
title 5 times, more than any other two players. And while the
ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
Capablanca, they were still pretty clear-cut.
SAT W-7
was playing would he be on last place too ??
I am not sure who will win ....
I am looking forward too it..
Yes they are so even as their record shows ..A great rivalry.....
Since Kasparov is younger i give him the edge.
ChessFire
wrote:
Ah, but there Taylor, is another story. Kasparov himself said so - he
simply couldn't seem to want to win enough - and this is not
antipathy, as much as ennui.
Karpov sdaid much the same, and he would get a charge out of playing
for example, Viktor Korchnoi. In his book [Karpov and Karpov, which
BTW I seem to be the only reader of in this newsgroup - I won it at a
tournament] he also said that the greatest charge for him would have
been to play Fischer ~ from memory, then, he said, I would have played
at the 90th percentile of my game.
> they were still pretty clear-cut.
You, perhaps sensibly do not call the result - like others here - and
its intriguing, no? In their times Kasparov was always such a favorite
to overcome anyone, but Karpov had such resilience as to refute or
resist anyone.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 15, 6:31 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 3:06 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Time to bet on how it will go - before everybody goes nutz for
> > > Kasparov, since Karpov is currently not doing well in a tournament,
> > > check out the following results of their encounters, especially the
> > > last one. Phil Innes
>
> > > ====
>
> > > There have been many great rivalries in sport. But which is the
> > > greatest rivalry in chess history? Would it be Kasparov vs. Karpov?
>
> > You could definitely make a very good case for it. Last I checked,
> > they had played more serious high-level chess against each other than
> > other two players in history, something like 175 match and tournament
> > games, eclipsing long ago the previous record, which as I recall was
> > 96 games between Botvinnik and Smyslov. They played for the world
> > title 5 times, more than any other two players. And while the
> > ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
> > Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
> > Capablanca,
>
> Ah, but there Taylor, is another story. Kasparov himself said so - he
> simply couldn't seem to want to win enough - and this is not
> antipathy, as much as ennui.
Or just getting older.
> Karpov sdaid much the same, and he would get a charge out of playing
> for example, Viktor Korchnoi. In his book [Karpov and Karpov,
Do you mean "Karpov on Karpov"?
> which
> BTW I seem to be the only reader of in this newsgroup -
No, if you mean "Karpov on Karpov," you lent it to me some years
ago, remember?
> I won it at a
> tournament] he also said that the greatest charge for him would have
> been to play Fischer ~ from memory, then, he said, I would have played
> at the 90th percentile of my game.
Yes, my feeling is that Karpov would have loved to play Fischer. But
he was not in a position to buck Soviet officialdom to do so, and
Fischer was in no mood to compromise on his match terms.
> > they were still pretty clear-cut.
>
> You, perhaps sensibly do not call the result - like others here - and
> its intriguing, no?
You mean a prediction of the upcoming match? Insufficient data for
me; haven't studied either GK's or AK's recent games at all. I was
present for the latter half of their last encounter, for what that's
worth. The crucial game there, as I recall, was one of the first two,
which I followed on the Internet. Under both tactical and horological
pressure, GK blundered. I recall mentally working out the nature of
his mistake as I fell asleep that night.
EJAY
> There have been many great rivalries in sport. But which is the
> greatest rivalry in chess history? Would it be Kasparov vs. Karpov? The answer has to be yes.In hidsight if there was no Kasparov (or if Karpov convincingly won that first Match) Karpov may have gone down as the best player of all time.
I think the Smyslov-Botvinnik rivalry of the 50's was a good one.Even
though Botvinnik held the Title longer I still maintain it was Smyslov
who was the better player throughout the 1950's.Smyslov had a plus 1
score in the 3 World Championship Matches overall. It seems to me that
Smyslov should have been entitled to a Rematch as a World Champion.For
that matter Tal should have had that right
also...
EJAY
Offramp
greatest sporting rivalries on tinterner and the top link was from my
favorite newspaper, The Observer:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,822392,00.html
Weirdly, their number one, in all sport, team & individual, is Fischer
v Spassky!
You'll also see the names Grischuk & Platov farther down the list.
Wacky!
SAT W-7
Yankees in baseball..
Taylor Kingston
Yes, some weird choices there. Ice skating?? It's heavily skewed
toward British teams and sports (e.g. cricket, rugby). Of course
parochial bias will be evident in any list like this. Americans,
including myself, would load it with rivalries from our own Major
League Baseball, NBA basketball and NFL football teams.
The Observer choice I disagree with most strongly is Borg vs.
McEnroe. This was nothing compared to Borg vs. Picard and Star
Fleet.
Taylor Kingston
> > There have been many great rivalries in sport. But which is the
> > greatest rivalry in chess history? Would it be Kasparov vs. Karpov? The answer has to be yes.In hidsight if there was no Kasparov (or if Karpov convincingly won that first Match) Karpov may have gone down as the best player of all time.
>
> I think the Smyslov-Botvinnik rivalry of the 50's was a good one.Even
> though Botvinnik held the Title longer I still maintain it was Smyslov
> who was the better player throughout the 1950's.
I agree.
> Smyslov had a plus 1
> score in the 3 World Championship Matches overall. It seems to me that
> Smyslov should have been entitled to a Rematch as a World Champion.For
> that matter Tal should have had that right also...
That might be impractical; it could lead to an indefinite string of
rematches.
Frankly, I think FIDE should never have instituted the rematch rule.
It was done mainly at Botvinnik's request, and was a blatant case of
favoritism. His close calls, the tied matches with Bronstein in 1951
and Smyslov in 1954, made him anxious to get another edge in retaining
the title he had come to regard as his property, and FIDE gave it to
him. Without it, Botvinnik's reign would probably have ended with his
defeat by Smyslov in 1957, rather than 1963, in my opinion. He would
have needed to win a Candidates Tournament to get another shot at the
title, and I doubt he could have.
Botvinnik never did win a title match as incumbent World Champion;
he tied two and lost two. The only WCh matches he won were the
rematches in 1958 and 1961. He was royally ticked off that FIDE
revoked the rematch clause by 1963.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> And while the
> ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
> Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
> Capablanca, they were still pretty clear-cut.
That's absurd. Clearly it was as great as those other two pairs.
Karpov was establishment, Kasparov anti-establishment. That's
ideology.
But trust revisionist TK to 'set things straight'.
Vamos!
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 15, 6:31 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > And while the
>
> > ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
> > Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
> > Capablanca, they were still pretty clear-cut.
>
> That's absurd. Clearly it was as great as those other two pairs.
> Karpov was establishment, Kasparov anti-establishment.
True, but they were both from the same country. With Fischer and
Spassky you had the USA vs. the USSR, the major international
political/military/ideological rivalry of the time. Much more clear-
cut than GK vs. AK.
As far as Alekhine and Capablanca, I was not portraying that as an
ideological rivalry, purely a nasty personal one. In support of that
point, I would submit Alekhine's hatchet job on JRC in the book of the
New York 1927 tournament, his refusal to give an inch on rematch
terms, and the fact that AAA would demand higher fees from tournament
organizers if they contemplated including JRC. I don't recall any
comparable behavior from GK or AK.
> But trust revisionist TK to 'set things straight'.
No revisionism, Ray, just my opinion, supported by facts.
ChessFire
I do
> > which
> > BTW I seem to be the only reader of in this newsgroup -
>
> No, if you mean "Karpov on Karpov," you lent it to me some years
> ago, remember?
ah Yes! I D'ont think it was a big seller in the West, and in fact, no-
one else seems to own a copy
> > I won it at a
> > tournament] he also said that the greatest charge for him would have
> > been to play Fischer ~ from memory, then, he said, I would have played
> > at the 90th percentile of my game.
>
> Yes, my feeling is that Karpov would have loved to play Fischer. But
> he was not in a position to buck Soviet officialdom to do so, and
> Fischer was in no mood to compromise on his match terms.
The story of the '3rd signing' was that Fischer actually had pen in
hand, when he demurred fatally with one more condition - to add the
word 'professional' to the title. Karpov knew that Soviet Fide would
never go along with that, and his chances of a match were sunk.
> > > they were still pretty clear-cut.
>
> > You, perhaps sensibly do not call the result - like others here - and
> > its intriguing, no?
>
> You mean a prediction of the upcoming match? Insufficient data for
> me; haven't studied either GK's or AK's recent games at all. I was
> present for the latter half of their last encounter, for what that's
> worth. The crucial game there, as I recall, was one of the first two,
> which I followed on the Internet. Under both tactical and horological
> pressure, GK blundered. I recall mentally working out the nature of
> his mistake as I fell asleep that night.
It's going to be a tough call. I remember there was a considerable
amount of opinion that Karpov would actually have done better against
Deep Blue - and Kasparov's 'dynamic approach' was actaully the worst
way to play the machine. Perhaps even kasparov thought so too, which
is why he started playing the computer's game with daft openings, and
so on.
Phil Innes
ChessFire
> I did not look at that website , but i am thinking Boston vs new York
> Yankees in baseball..
The joke sticker reads:
I support two teams - Red Sox and whoever beats New York.
Phil
RayLopez99
> It's going to be a tough call. I remember there was a considerable
> amount of opinion that Karpov would actually have done better against
> Deep Blue - and Kasparov's 'dynamic approach' was actaully the worst
> way to play the machine. Perhaps even kasparov thought so too, which
> is why he started playing the computer's game with daft openings, and
> so on.
Yes, that's a good point, Karpov plays better against a computer. And
how Kasparov choked on that book line Caro-Kann involving the knight
sac on e6 in that 6th game was pathetic.
RL
ChessFire
> wrote:
>
> > And while the
>
> > ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
> > Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
> > Capablanca, they were still pretty clear-cut.
Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study
Alekhine for 2 years, and out Capa, Capa. Famously the Cuban remarked,
'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
> That's absurd. Clearly it was as great as those other two pairs.
> Karpov was establishment, Kasparov anti-establishment. That's
> ideology.
Karpov says his greatest sense of challenge and the corresponding
energy which goes with it was against Korchnoi. The 90th percentile I
mentioned to TK, is his comment about Fischer - which was greater than
Korchnoi.
The interesting thing amoung all top players is not their overall
performance against all comers, therefore not as much their Elo - as
what happens to them in match play. Elo seems to be a particularly
poor predictor of that [not that it pretends to cover small X as in
matches]
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 17, 10:45 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 6:31 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > And while the
> > > ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
> > > Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
> > > Capablanca, they were still pretty clear-cut.
>
> Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study
> Alekhine for 2 years,
I presume you mean Alekhine studied Capablanca for two years?
Actually it was longer than that. And I would say rather than boring
Capablanca, Alekhine outlasted him. Alekhine prepared meticulously for
the match, not only in terms of chess study, but physically and
psychologically, exercising regularly and even adapting his sleeping/
waking hours to fit the match schedule. In contrast, the over-
confident Capablanca did not undertake much if any disciplined
preparation, and so ran out of will and energy before Alekhine.
> and out-Capa Capa.
He did indeed, playing in a very careful style, waiting to
capitalize on Capa's infrequent errors, rather than create
complications, as he often did against other opponents. This at least
partly explains the prevalence of the play-it-safe Orthodox Defense to
the QGD in the match. Alekhine tried the Queen's Indian twice, but
when that didn't work out, he stuck with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 exclusively,
IIRC.
> Famously the Cuban remarked,
> 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
What is your source for that remark, Phil? It seems odd that
Capablanca would denigrate someone for playing in his own style.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," and all that.
> > That's absurd. Clearly it was as great as those other two pairs.
> > Karpov was establishment, Kasparov anti-establishment. That's
> > ideology.
>
> Karpov says his greatest sense of challenge and the corresponding
> energy which goes with it was against Korchnoi. The 90th percentile I
> mentioned to TK, is his comment about Fischer - which was greater than
> Korchnoi.
This got me to thinking about events, in both chess and other
sports, that had strong ideological overtones. Here are the most
important ones I could think of offhand, in no particular order:
Fischer-Spassky 1972
Jesse Owens' four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics
The Louis-Schmeling heavyweight boxing title fights of 1936 and 1938
The three Karpov-Korchnoi matches (1974, 1978, 1981)
The US hockey team victory over the USSR in the 1980 Winter Olympics
The USSR's controversial win over the USA in basketball, 1972
Olympics
The USSR's lopsided victories in various team chess matches vs. the
USA in the 1940s and '50s
Alekhine-Botvinnik, Nottingham 1936
Botvinnik-Fischer, Varna Olympiad 1962
I would welcome additions to the list from other readers.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> This got me to thinking about events, in both chess and other
> sports, that had strong ideological overtones. Here are the most
> important ones I could think of offhand, in no particular order:
>
You forgot the Neo-Lamarkian debate in evolution. Darwin's diehards
refuse to accept that a parent can will changes to their offspring.
As I noted to you repeatedly, and which you have conveniently ignored,
the red-headed fitch recently reported by in Science is able to change
the gender of their offspring depending on what color the male's head
is--and when it's colored red, more XX offspring result, even if the
bird is artificially colored.
Same w\ cichlids--they are visually stimulated fish that sometimes
favor certain colors.
Specieszation Taylor--what determines when animals will mate? Why is
the lion and the tiger classified as seperate species when in fact
they will, in a zoo, mate and produce non-sterile offspring? It's Neo-
Lamarkianism (animals determine what they want their offspring to be,
and their characteristics, and are passed on by the animal's will).
Something that you cannot acknowledge, with your ideological blinders
on.
RL
Taylor Kingston
Yes, and we must not forget Flintstone-Rubble, Bedrock 50,000 BC.
The match that decided whether Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon man would
inherit the Earth.
Offramp
> Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study
> Alekhine for 2 years, and out Capa, Capa. Famously the Cuban remarked,
> 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
It can't be that famous. I have never heard of it.
Where did you read that?
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> On Jul 18, 11:10 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > It's going to be a tough call. I remember there was a considerable
> > amount of opinion that Karpov would actually have done better against
> > Deep Blue - and Kasparov's 'dynamic approach' was actaully the worst
> > way to play the machine. Perhaps even kasparov thought so too, which
> > is why he started playing the computer's game with daft openings, and
> > so on.
>
> Yes, that's a good point, Karpov plays better against a computer.
Garbage. The evidence is to the contrary.
> And how Kasparov choked on that book line
> Caro-Kann involving the knight
> sac on e6 in that 6th game was pathetic.
Kasparov felt that he is playing
against the team consisting of the computer
and of the GMs hired by OBM (Benjamin & co).
No wonder that finally, after magnificent struggles,
he had collapsed in that final game.
And still, the way he was pressing for the win
a game after a game was incredible, he showed
understanding of chess like nobody else.
And in the first game, when all commentators
and everybody was sure that he is going to lose,
he won in a wild tactical game. Kasparov is a unique
chess genius.
Wlod
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
>
> Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine,
Oh, it was soooo boring for him to
have his butt kicked. Actually, Capablanca's chess
in general was considered both brilliant and boring,
but Alechine's chess was considered brilliant and unsound,
except in the match against Capa, when it was both
brilliant and sound.
The players from those years considered
Alechine to be the breath of fresh air.
Reti (I think; and perhaps others too)
thought that Alechine was better than Capa
already some time before the match. That
his poor score against Capa was a psychological
thing. There was also a claim that Alechine
played poorly against Capa on purpose -
Alechine didn't want to scare Capa away
from the match.
During the match Alechine played sharp
and sound moves, and was strong in the
endgame too. His victory was a renewal
for chess (ever heard about "draw death"?
- that's Capa)..
> Karpov says his greatest sense of challenge
> and the corresponding energy which goes with
> it was against Korchnoi.
Fortunately for Karpov, Karpov had the support
of the Soviet regime, including KGB, and this
more than made up for his relative shortage of
chess skills, when compared with Korchnoy
from those years.
(Hm, such threads as this one can be mildly
interesting despite the garbage from a RL99 :-)
Regards,
Wlod
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
>
> I think the Smyslov-Botvinnik rivalry of the 50's
> was a good one.
Certainly.
> Even though Botvinnik held the Title longer I still
> maintain it was Smyslov who was the better player
> throughout the 1950's.
Sure. Some chunks of 50's belonged also to
Bronstein, keres and Tal, but Smyslov won
two Interzonals in a row, which was a superb
achievement. On the second occasion Kotov
made it interesting by beating Smyslov. This
despite the widely believed "Soviet conspiracy".
And Kotov was an aparatchik :-)
> Smyslov had a plus 1
> score in the 3 World Championship Matches overall.
This, for the sake of our discussion,
is meaningless, because in one game
Botvinnik in a won sitution, and with
plenty of time to make his last move befor
adjornment, simply overslept the whole
thing - I guess the position was ointeresting -
and he lost that game on time. It was in their
last match, in which Botvinnik dominated Smyslov.
The last word was Botvinnik's.
> It seems to me that
> Smyslov should have been entitled to a Rematch
> as a World Champion. For that matter Tal should
> have had that right also...
But Tal wondered what it would be
if the rematch option was taken away
from Botvinnik 3 years earlier than it was.
Wlod
Taylor Kingston
<sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:24 am, EJAY <etj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think the Smyslov-Botvinnik rivalry of the 50's
> > was a good one.
>
> Certainly.
>
> > Even though Botvinnik held the Title longer I still
> > maintain it was Smyslov who was the better player
> > throughout the 1950's.
>
> Sure. Some chunks of 50's belonged also to
> Bronstein, keres and Tal, but Smyslov won
> two Interzonals in a row, which was a superb
> achievement.
Wlod, I think you mean Candidates Tournaments, not Interzonals. As
far as I can determine, Smyslov's record in Interzonals was:
1964: +11 -0 =12, =1st-4th with Larsen, Spassky and Tal
1970: +7 -3 =13, =7-8th
1973: +7 -2 =8, 5th
1982: +6 -2 =5, 2nd behind Ribli
You are probably thinking of his victories in the 1953 and 1956
Candidates Tournaments. He did not have to play in the 1952 or 1955
Interzonals to qualify for those; he was automatically seeded into
them.
madams
.
> Yes, and we must not forget Flintstone-Rubble, Bedrock 50,000 BC.
> The match that decided whether Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon man would
> inherit the Earth.
Neanderthals had bigger brains...
The stupids won..
m.
RayLopez99
<sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine,
>
> Oh, it was soooo boring for him to
> have his butt kicked. Actually, Capablanca's chess
> in general was considered both brilliant and boring,
> but Alechine's chess was considered brilliant and unsound,
> except in the match against Capa, when it was both
> brilliant and sound.
No. And Karpov plays better in closed positions, which means against
a computer.
>
> The players from those years considered
> Alechine to be the breath of fresh air.
> Reti (I think; and perhaps others too)
> thought that Alechine was better than Capa
> already some time before the match. That
> his poor score against Capa was a psychological
> thing. There was also a claim that Alechine
> played poorly against Capa on purpose -
> Alechine didn't want to scare Capa away
> from the match.
No. Aleckine (sic) played over his potential, Capa below his, based
on historic Elos. See Jeff Sonas' site.
>
> Fortunately for Karpov, Karpov had the support
> of the Soviet regime, including KGB, and this
> more than made up for his relative shortage of
> chess skills, when compared with Korchnoy
> from those years.
No. This is a Korchnoi fiction. Karpov was better always. Again,
Sonas' site.
>
> (Hm, such threads as this one can be mildly
> interesting despite the garbage from a RL99 :-)
>
No. Not mildly interesting. That's you on a date.
RL
Taylor Kingston
>
> Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study
> Alekhine for 2 years, and out Capa, Capa. Famously the Cuban remarked,
> 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
Phil, still waiting for you to name your source for this remark.
I've been perusing Capablanca's statements made just after the
Alekhine match, and I don't find anything much like your purported
quote. Rather than complain about Alekhine's style, Capa's main lament
is that he no longer finds chess itself as interesting as he used to.
On the day he resigned the match, 30 November 1927, he wrote (using
the "royal we"):
"It is evident that in the future if we wish to succeed in any such
enterprise we shall have to enter the arena fully prepared both
pysically and mentally ... Such preparation implies, perforce,
sacrifices of a nature which are only made when the thing itself is
worth the sacrifice, when the love of it is very great, or the
financial remuneration worth the sacrifice.
"None of these things concur in this case. Of late we have lost a
great deal of love for the game because we consider it as coming to an
end exceedingly fast."
Capa goes on to explain why he believes chess is becoming exhausted,
and concludes "The game evidently needs to be modified for contests
among the great masters."
This is the only sense in which I can find him saying 'if that's
chess, you can keep it.' Not a reaction to Alekhine in particular, but
to the growing body of theory and technique that he believed was
making traditional chess artistically sterile.
So, if you can tell us where and when Capa said "if that's chess,
you can keep it," or anything close to that in reference to Alekhine's
style, I'd be interested.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
wrote:> [...] Smyslov won
> > two Interzonals in a row, which was a superb
> > achievement.
>
> Wlod, I think you mean Candidates Tournaments,
> not Interzonals.
Of course. Thank you, Taylor, for the correction.
Regards,
Wlod
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
>
> [...] Karpov plays better in closed positions,
> which means against a computer.
You're so dense. I told you
that there is **evidence** that
Karpov was not good against
computers.
1. Karpov was a bit too old and
too stiff for computers. In a contrast
to Kasparov and Anand who took
to chess computers like fish to water,
fishy Karpov was never fond of them,
hardly used them in his preparations
for matches and tournaments. He used
them only indirectly, via his assistants.
Even Bronstein enjoyed computers,
but not Karpov.
2.Karpov liked money a lot (and still
does). He could make all the money
he wanted by playing matches against
computers. But he was not comfortable
against computers.
3. On the one occasion when both Karpov
and Kasparov played the same computer
(DeepThought?), Karpov won just barely,
with a great effort. He was lucky to escape
a worse result. Kasparov destroyed
the same program with ease. Of course later
Karpov had his usual excuses and long
explanations why he made a poor impression.
RL99, you're so dense and outdated.
It's 2009 these days, not 1999. You need
an update on Ruy Lopez. Well, switch
to simpler game. Are you still wasting
your mother's money trying to get
a successful porno business? If I am a bit
off you may take advantage of my question
to advertise your entrepreneurship skills :-)
Wlod
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
True. Karpov was always a better Soviet citizen
and communist party aparatchik.
Wlod
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> Aleckine (sic)
You're sick yourself.
> See Jeff Sonas' site.
I rather play well than be well on
this garbage site.
> Again, Sonas' site.
You're dense again. Sona's site is for
dummies like you. It's even very
nicely packaged (this aspect indeed is
impressive), so that a guy like you
will swallow it smoothly.
Wlod
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Jul 18, 11:16 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 10:45 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 6:31 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > And while the
> > > > ideological division was not as sharp as with, say, Fischer and
> > > > Spassky, nor the personal antipathy as great as with Alekhine and
> > > > Capablanca, they were still pretty clear-cut.
>
> > Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study
> > Alekhine for 2 years,
>
> I presume you mean Alekhine studied Capablanca for two years?
That 's real English syntax, that is mate!
> Actually it was longer than that. And I would say rather than boring
> Capablanca, Alekhine outlasted him.
I am merely reporting Capa himself.
> Alekhine prepared meticulously for
> the match, not only in terms of chess study, but physically and
> psychologically, exercising regularly and even adapting his sleeping/
> waking hours to fit the match schedule. In contrast, the over-
> confident Capablanca
I am not sure he was over-confident as much as had a life! Liked
girls, et cetera.
> did not undertake much if any disciplined
> preparation, and so ran out of will and energy before Alekhine.
>
> > and out-Capa Capa.
>
> He did indeed, playing in a very careful style, waiting to
> capitalize on Capa's infrequent errors, rather than create
> complications, as he often did against other opponents. This at least
> partly explains the prevalence of the play-it-safe Orthodox Defense to
> the QGD in the match. Alekhine tried the Queen's Indian twice, but
> when that didn't work out, he stuck with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 exclusively,
> IIRC.
>
> > Famously the Cuban remarked,
> > 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
>
> What is your source for that remark, Phil? It seems odd that
> Capablanca would denigrate someone for playing in his own style.
> "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," and all that.
He is denigrating Alekhine's behavior, rather than Alekhine himself,
or the style.
I think the source is in Mea Cuba - where there is an entire essay
chapter on Capablanca, as well as a funny chapter on
'Castroenteritis'. His chess writing is not nearly so reverent to
chess or chess players as we normally read.
I've just found a Wiki page for the title. Author is Guillermo Cabrera
Infante (April 22, 1929 – February 21, 2005)
He wrote the script for the 1971 film Vanishing point. And here is
list of Works:
Así en la paz como en la guerra (1960, "So in peace as in war")
Twentieth Century Job (1963, film reviews)
Vista del amanecer en el trópico (1964, novel, published in English as
"A View of Dawn in the Tropics")
Tres Tristes Tigres (1967, novel, published in English as Three
Trapped Tigers; the original title refers to a Spanish-language tongue-
twister, and literally means "Three Sad Tigers"); portions of this
were later republished as Ella cantaba boleros
Exorcismos de esti(l)o (1976, novel, "Exorcisms of style"; estilo
means style and estío, summertime)
La Habana para un Infante Difunto (1979, memoir, published in English
as Infante's Inferno; the Spanish title is a pun on "Pavane pour une
infante defunte", title of a piano piece by Maurice Ravel)
Holy Smoke, 1985 (in English, later translated into Spanish as Puro
Humo)
Cine o sardina (1997, "Cinema or sardine")
Vidas para leerlas (1998, essays, "Lives to be read")
Arcadia todas las noches ("Arcadia every night")
Mea Cuba (1991, political essays, the title means "Cuba Pisses" or
"Cuba is Pissing" and is a pun on "Mea Culpa")
Infantería (title is a pun on his name and the Spanish for "infantry")
Cabrera Infante also translated James Joyce's Dubliners into Spanish
(1972) and wrote screenplays, including Vanishing Point and the
adaptation of Malcolm Lowry's Under the Volcano.
> > Karpov says his greatest sense of challenge and the corresponding
> > energy which goes with it was against Korchnoi. The 90th percentile I
> > mentioned to TK, is his comment about Fischer - which was greater than
> > Korchnoi.
>
> This got me to thinking about events, in both chess and other
> sports, that had strong ideological overtones. Here are the most
> important ones I could think of offhand, in no particular order:
But Karpov, despite all appearances, was not an ideologue - this was
purely an // artistic // response to other individuals.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 18, 12:00 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually it was longer than that. And I would say rather than boring
> > Capablanca, Alekhine outlasted him.
>
> I am merely reporting Capa himself.
Again, one wonders, from where?
>
> > > Famously the Cuban remarked,
> > > 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
>
> > What is your source for that remark, Phil? It seems odd that
> > Capablanca would denigrate someone for playing in his own style.
> > "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," and all that.
>
> He is denigrating Alekhine's behavior, rather than Alekhine himself,
> or the style.
But Phil, the only "behavior" you mentioned was that Alekhine
studied Capablanca for two years, and 'out-Capa'ed Capa,' i.e. adopted
JRC's own style in the 1927 match. Capa denigrated Alekhine for
studying hard and playing like him? Seems implausible, at best.
> I think the source is in Mea Cuba - where there is an entire essay
> chapter on Capablanca,
You "think" it's there? You mean you aren't sure it's in "Mea Cuba"?
Do you actually have the book? If so, why can't you cite the exact
quote and page number? If not, why are you claiming it as your source?
Even if that book does report what you claim, I would not be too
quick to believe it. Back in December 2008, Edward Winter said of the
author "Cabrera Infante was unfamiliar with basic facts about
Capablanca’s life." Winter cites one passage he finds "particularly
odd," from pages 421-422:
"In the Manhattan Chess Club the Cuban grew close to one of the
greatest American players, Frank Marshall, whom he would defeat
decisively in 1909. Capablanca was 21 [sic] years old, Marshall 33
[sic]. A very bored Capablanca playing against Marshall nodded off
more than once."
This leads me to wonder, Phil, if your memory could be misconstruing
this shaky anecdote for an actual Capablanca quote, and confusing
Alekhine with Marshall. Wouldn't be the first time you've garbled such
things.
> I've just found a Wiki page for the title. Author is Guillermo Cabrera
> Infante (April 22, 1929 – February 21, 2005)
That's nice, Phil, but since it does not address the point at issue,
it's rather irrelevant, n'est ce pas?
RayLopez99
wrote:
Phil was obviously paraphrasing the gist of the conversation, not
quoting literally. Situational awareness and taking things in context
are not your strong points TK.
As for Capa's remarks, he was echoing what he said earlier in the
1920s about how chess was suffering from "draw death". Recall the
spell where he only lost 1 game in 10 years--he said something
similar.
RL
RayLopez99
wrote:
> That's nice, Phil, but since it does not address the point at issue,
> it's rather irrelevant, n'est ce pas?
Trying to speak French again. It's as bad as your Spanish, que pas?
RL
ChessFire
>
> > On Jul 18, 12:00 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Actually it was longer than that. And I would say rather than boring
> > > Capablanca, Alekhine outlasted him.
>
> > I am merely reporting Capa himself.
>
> Again, one wonders, from where?
>
>
>
> > > > Famously the Cuban remarked,
> > > > 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
>
> > > What is your source for that remark, Phil? It seems odd that
> > > Capablanca would denigrate someone for playing in his own style.
> > > "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," and all that.
>
> > He is denigrating Alekhine's behavior, rather than Alekhine himself,
> > or the style.
>
> But Phil, the only "behavior" you mentioned was that Alekhine
> studied Capablanca for two years, and 'out-Capa'ed Capa,' i.e. adopted
> JRC's own style in the 1927 match. Capa denigrated Alekhine for
> studying hard and playing like him? Seems implausible, at best.
Actually, the gentleman had a Latin temperament, and since he was
wrote that if you played chess instead of going out on a date, you
were nutz! I think it is completely consistent with Capablanca and his
times.
And it's not 'denigrate' - its simply stating his own attitude to the
game.
> > I think the source is in Mea Cuba - where there is an entire essay
> > chapter on Capablanca,
>
> You "think" it's there? You mean you aren't sure it's in "Mea Cuba"?
Yes, that's what 'think' means in this context.
> Do you actually have the book?
Yes.
> If so, why can't you cite the exact
> quote and page number? If not, why are you claiming it as your source?
Because the builders have been in for 3 weeks, and everything is
covered with plastic sheets. As to any imperative, or 'claim', the
urgency seems to come from yourself, including changing the name of
the thread. Why didn't you make a new thread instead, or even go to
the library and read the Capa essay in the book?
> Even if that book does report what you claim, I would not be too
> quick to believe it. Back in December 2008, Edward Winter said of the
> author "Cabrera Infante was unfamiliar with basic facts about
> Capablanca’s life." Winter cites one passage he finds "particularly
> odd," from pages 421-422:
>
> "In the Manhattan Chess Club the Cuban grew close to one of the
> greatest American players, Frank Marshall, whom he would defeat
> decisively in 1909. Capablanca was 21 [sic] years old, Marshall 33
> [sic]. A very bored Capablanca playing against Marshall nodded off
> more than once."
>
> This leads me to wonder, Phil, if your memory could be misconstruing
> this shaky anecdote for an actual Capablanca quote,
While confusion is always possible, why should the anecdote be
'shaky'? It's true I don't remember if it is reported speech - but why
are you so hot on this issue?
> and confusing
> Alekhine with Marshall. Wouldn't be the first time you've garbled such
> things.
'such things?'
How handsomely and gratuitously vague you are?
> > I've just found a Wiki page for the title. Author is Guillermo Cabrera
> > Infante (April 22, 1929 – February 21, 2005)
>
> That's nice, Phil, but since it does not address the point at issue,
Actually its your point that is become an 'issue', and I never said it
addressed the point at issue, but that I thought it did.
Now, whether you and Winter like this or not, is I suppose 'your'
issue, but at least he seems to have read the essay - even if he only
manages to scruple over some small point.
> it's rather irrelevant, n'est ce pas?
Il n'appartient qu'aux grands hommes d'avoir de grands défauts.
O la våche!
Phil Innes
RayLopez99
<sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RL99, you're so dense and outdated.
> It's 2009 these days, not 1999. You need
> an update on Ruy Lopez. Well, switch
> to simpler game.
You stupid or what Wlod? "99" refers to my IQ, not the year 1999.
Mensa will never accept you as a member.
RL
RayLopez99
<sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're dense again. Sona's site is for
> dummies like you. It's even very
> nicely packaged (this aspect indeed is
> impressive), so that a guy like you
> will swallow it smoothly.
>
Koo-koo! You're wacko, Jacko (apologies to M. Jackson).
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 20, 9:18 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > This leads me to wonder, Phil, if your memory could be misconstruing
> > this shaky anecdote for an actual Capablanca quote,
>
> While confusion is always possible, why should the anecdote be
> 'shaky'?
As should be obvious, Phil, because Winter, who is an expert on
Capablanca, considers it so.
> It's true I don't remember if it is reported speech - but why
> are you so hot on this issue?
Because it's like other instances where you've talked through your
hat, garbling history or even fabricating it. The statement you
attribute to Capablanca sounds very unlike him to me. If you can
supply an authoritative source, then I'd be more inclined to believe
it, but as usual you can't or won't.
And you've already backtracked, saying one thing, and then claiming
you meant another. Therefore I am doubly dubious. I will obtain
Cabrera Infante's book (abebooks has it for a mere $1.47), and see if
it has what you claim. Stay tuned.
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:51 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 9:18 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > This leads me to wonder, Phil, if your memory could be misconstruing
> > > this shaky anecdote for an actual Capablanca quote,
>
> > While confusion is always possible, why should the anecdote be
> > 'shaky'?
>
> As should be obvious, Phil, because Winter, who is an expert on
> Capablanca, considers it so.
ROFL!
I'm afraid that is not answer to how Winter knows anything. I am not
looking for a guru of 'the obvious'.
> > It's true I don't remember if it is reported speech - but why
> > are you so hot on this issue?
>
> Because it's like other instances where you've talked through your
> hat, garbling history or even fabricating it.
What?
> The statement you
> attribute to Capablanca sounds very unlike him to me.
You are not attending to what I write - why are you so hot?
Let's face it, every time you do this you become vaguer and vaguer
combined with more offensive diction. And despite the fact that you
ask for facts, or citations, they mean absolutely nothing to you - in
fact you only use them to support your own attitudes.
When it was Lasker coming in 8th - you became furious!
And yet, when I referred you to an encyclopedia which you also have,
and also mentioned that an expert on Nottingham, Hooper, had made the
entry - you then declared Hooper wrong!
ROFL. All the while possessing no facts yourself. I merely said it was
unclear to me if Lasker should have been 8th or place 7th/8th, but
without any facts at all you continued to 'argue' with me.
> If you can
> supply an authoritative source, then I'd be more inclined to believe
> it, but as usual you can't or won't.
Because you are such an impertinent son of a bitch what is 'usual' is
that I can't be bothered. I said I THINK I know the source, and told
you about it. Perhaps I have paraphrased from my memory.
But I already told you that the book is not to hand, which you now
ignore.
> And you've already backtracked, saying one thing, and then claiming
> you meant another.
?
> Therefore I am doubly dubious. I will obtain
> Cabrera Infante's book (abebooks has it for a mere $1.47), and see if
> it has what you claim. Stay tuned.
ACTUALLY, like the Lasker incident, I don't give a damn if he said one
thing or another - or whatever exact words he used. I simply
remembered the sense of it.
I BTW once copied out the entire Capa article and posted it to this
very newsgroup - and indeed it is still on the computer under this
desk, and under an inch of dust.
-----
A synchronicity is an article published this day, on Capablanca and
Marshall - indeed on Capablanca and the Marshall var of the Ruy Lopez
- here is an extract
By Lubomir Kavalek
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, July 20, 2009; 9:16 AM
Ongoing Enigma
Peter Svidler, the five-time champion of Russia, finished third in San
Sebastian with 5½ points. His victory against the young French
grandmaster Maxime Vachier Lagrave, 19, presents a new challenge in a
fashionable line of the Marshall Attack in the Spanish opening. Ever
since Frank James Marshall used it against Capablanca in New York in
1918, the Marshall Attack has baffled the best chess minds. The fact
that it still survives 90 years later shows the perplexing nature of
the variation.
Here is the whole article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072000860.html
and as above the chessic weight of the article is about the Marshall
attack, especially what Petr Svidler did with it recently. The whole
game is there, and while game scores are not copyrightable, let's
respect the Post's annotation, which is.
Vachier Lagrave-Svidler
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3
d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3
15.Re4
then comes
15...g5!?
this move is known by all chess professionals as 'pawn to Sloan
5' :))))
16.Qf1
the rest of the game is there too - the interest is that Svidler has
developed a new bite in the Marshall.
Phil Innes
RayLopez99
>
> A synchronicity is an article published this day, on Capablanca and
> Marshall - indeed on Capablanca and the Marshall var of the Ruy Lopez
> - here is an extract
Ruy Lopez is my cousin. Note the spelling of the first name.
Good to see that Lubomir Kavalek is writing a column for the
Washington Post again. I canceled my subscription when they dropped
him.
RL
William Hyde
> Capablanca was simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study
> Alekhine for 2 years, and out Capa, Capa. Famously the Cuban remarked,
> 'if that's chess, you can keep it.'
Let us recall that it was Janowsky who said that he couldn't play
well in his match with Lasker because the latter was boring him.
Losers of chess matches, even the best, are not always good judges of
why they lost (though perhaps Alekhine himself is an exception).
Perhaps more realistically, Capa also said that he had missed ten
chances in the match ("enough to win two matches") while Alekhine had
missed few or none. I know the feeling. When very young I used to
lose nearly every game to a player who I suspected was my inferior.
But my "inferior", damn him, just concentrated harder and grabbed my
pieces when I hung them. Not sporting!
William Hyde
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 20, 11:07 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The statement you
> > attribute to Capablanca sounds very unlike him to me.
>
> You are not attending to what I write
On the contrary, Phil, I'm attending very closely. It's you who try
to backtrack, though how you think you can get away with it here in
broad daylight has always amazed me.
> Let's face it, every time you do this you become vaguer and vaguer
> combined with more offensive diction. And despite the fact that you
> ask for facts, or citations, they mean absolutely nothing to you - in
> fact you only use them to support your own attitudes.
On the contrary, Phil. They mean nothing to you. That's why you
never produce them.
> When it was Lasker coming in 8th - you became furious!
Ah, no, Phil. It was you who became furious when I pointed out you
were wrong.
> And yet, when I referred you to an encyclopedia which you also have,
> and also mentioned that an expert on Nottingham, Hooper, had made the
> entry - you then declared Hooper wrong!
> ROFL. All the while possessing no facts yourself.
Phil, don't go embarrassing yourself all over again about Nottingham
1936. *_I_* had the facts, and still do. All you had was Hooper's
mistake, which you seemed to think had to be defended to the death.
You did, and what died was your credibility (yet again).
> Because you are such an impertinent son of a bitch what is 'usual' is
> that I can't be bothered. I said I THINK I know the source, and told
> you about it. Perhaps I have paraphrased from my memory.
Or perhaps you have "remembered" something that does not exist.
> But I already told you that the book is not to hand, which you now
> ignore.
Oh no, Phil. I'm going to get the book, and see if it does have the
statement you believe it does. I will post my finding here.
> ACTUALLY, like the Lasker incident, I don't give a damn if he said one
> thing or another - or whatever exact words he used.
That's a big difference between us, Phil. I care about historical
factual accuracy. I do give a damn whether Capa said this or that, and
I care about his exact words. I think you're careless, even reckless
with facts. You toss out some improbable nonsense, and expect us to
take it on faith. And you get all huffy when anyone questions you in
the least. I enjoy exposing your gaffes, and watching you huff.
Frankly, Phil, your statement "I don't give a damn if he said one
thing or another" carries a strong whiff of personal dishonesty. At
first you assured us "Capablanca said X." That's like saying, "I
promise that this is true." Now you're saying "I don't give a damn,"
in effect "My earlier promise means nothing." You do this sort of
thing repeatedly, oblivious to any concern for your own integrity.
> I simply
> remembered the sense of it.
That very much remains to be seen. As I said, once I have Cabrera
Infante's book, I will post the relevant facts here. The local
libraries don't have it, but it can be easily and cheaply obtained
from abebooks.com. Should take about a week.
> I BTW once copied out the entire Capa article and posted it to this
> very newsgroup -
You mean this?
That particular article most emphatically does not support your
claim. It says nothing about the 1927 match, nothing negative about
Alekhine, nothing even vaguely like "If that's chess, you can keep
it."
Or do you mean this?
The short bits there don't look like a complete article, and again
there is nothing resembling your purported statement by Capablanca.
BTW, Phil, in addition to claiming that Capa said "If that's chess,
you can keep it," you said "_*_Famously_*_ the Cuban remarked 'If
that's chess, you can keep it'" (emphasis added). If this remark is so
famous, surely other sources besides Cabrera Infante have reported
it.
<snip remaining Innes irrelevancies>
EZoto
>
> As should be obvious, Phil, because Winter, who is an expert on
>Capablanca, considers it so.
>
Capablanca what does he think of Reshevsky when he was a child playing
chess. I have seen some of his games and they were pretty impressive
for his age too.
EZoto
Taylor Kingston
You seem to be asking if Winter has offered an opinion on the
relative quality of Reshevsky's and Capablanca's games as youngsters.
Do I understand you correctly? If so, that is not the sort of thing
Winter generally does. He is not an analyst of games; rather he is a
collector of historical data.
help bot
As the Great Dr. IMnes might put it, it is well known
that Sammy Reshevsky *famously* misrepresented
his actual age; or should I say, his parents did.
Travelling about giving simuls and whatnot, little
Sammy, who was small for his age, was claimed to
be even younger than he actually was, and this prov-
ed to be a lucrative sort of lie (take note, RK et al).
----------------------------------------------------------------
But the real champion of playing chess superbly
when very young was Paul Morphy, who, while still
wearing women's shoes (which he carefully arran-
ged in a semi-circle in the bathtub) once famously
ran naked through an insane asylum while whistling
Dixie and juggling seven flaming pawns-- at the
tender age of two and a half months. By the age
of three months, he was offering odds to all but the
very best players in New Orleans, and by seven
months he had earned a doctorate of jurisprudence
-- though he never actually practiced law, preferring
instead to chase women (starting at four months of
age).
Note that the source of all these anecdotes is
exactly the same place Dr. IMnes pulled his "fact-
oids" out from.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think we need to toss out opinion in
view of the fact that much has been written while
unaware of the lies regarding certain players' ages.
Let's just gather the data (i.e. actual results) and
punch it into a computer, then see what pops out.
I think we may find that Rybka has the most ama-
zing record with regard to performance vs. age;
mere humans simply cannot compete.
-- hel bot
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> On Jul 20, 1:37 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>
> <sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > RL99, you're so dense and outdated.
> > It's 2009 these days, not 1999. You need
> > an update on Ruy Lopez. Well, switch
> > to simpler game.
>
> You stupid or what Wlod? "99" refers to my IQ, not the year 1999.
There is no way that your IQ is 85 or higher.
> Mensa will never accept you as a member.
I don't need Mensa :-)
Wlod
ChessFire
> > Let's face it, every time you do this you become vaguer and vaguer
> > combined with more offensive diction. And despite the fact that you
> > ask for facts, or citations, they mean absolutely nothing to you - in
> > fact you only use them to support your own attitudes.
>
> On the contrary, Phil. They mean nothing to you. That's why you
> never produce them.
Vaguer and vaguer! TK now proceeds with the material I 'never'
produced:
> > When it was Lasker coming in 8th - you became furious!
>
> Ah, no, Phil. It was you who became furious when I pointed out you
> were wrong.
Change of subject. The material was produced, and TK 'pointed out'
that it was unreferenced: then as usual he challenged a source, and
when he obtained the source he 'pointed out' that it was wrong. But
with no facts of his own - the only contradiction to Hooper are other
writers who say 7th/8th. But are they correct? I have no idea. Taylor
Kingston has an idea and is still happy to make proclamations contra a
chess encyclopedia, while at the same time talking about Edward Winter
as an authority who, presumably doesn't require production of any
evidence to exlaim his own certainties.
In short, if TK doesn't like what is said, doesn't matter if you can
cite it in an encyclopedia, he will point out that it's wrong - from
the basis of his liking or disliking the idea.
> > And yet, when I referred you to an encyclopedia which you also have,
> > and also mentioned that an expert on Nottingham, Hooper, had made the
> > entry - you then declared Hooper wrong!
> > ROFL. All the while possessing no facts yourself.
>
> Phil, don't go embarrassing yourself all over again about Nottingham
> 1936. *_I_* had the facts, and still do.
Now - here we go with the information I never produced. TK does not
deny I produced it, but says in his own words I 'never' produce any.
But instead of admitting the Nottingham citation, we get attitude and
even abuse. TK has 'the facts' he says, meaning presumably differences
to Hooper:-
> All you had was Hooper's
> mistake, which you seemed to think had to be defended to the death.
TK is not quoting me at all - in fact here we have one lie, and one
error of logic.
Here is the logical error: Why should reports contradicting Hooper be
correct and Hooper wrong? Even if there are 5 other reports in
subsequent years, may they not simply be repeating an original error?
Hot to win the debate TK obtained a tournament book from England which
as I understand it fails to state the rules for placement. No proof of
anything there!
The lie is that I defended nothing to the death. I simply said I
didn't know if Hooper made an error, and therefore Lasker may have
been 7/8th or 8th. So all taylor Kingston's attitudes and his own
'facts' come highly qualified, since he is not an honest reporter.
Even on this issue, the Capablanca comment, he is quite willing to
make me some sort of mad-mullah, but he is so intellectually dishonest
that at the bottom of this post he writes
' <snip remaining Innes irrelevancies>'
> You did, and what died was your credibility (yet again).
>
> > Because you are such an impertinent son of a bitch what is 'usual' is
> > that I can't be bothered. I said I THINK I know the source, and told
> > you about it. Perhaps I have paraphrased from my memory.
>
> Or perhaps you have "remembered" something that does not exist.
>
> > But I already told you that the book is not to hand, which you now
> > ignore.
>
> Oh no, Phil. I'm going to get the book, and see if it does have the
> statement you believe it does. I will post my finding here.
It may not be there - I said I think it is. That's what you don't
like, isn't it? Which of us sounds like they want to 'win' something?
Maybe it was a paraphrase, but maybe not? Why Taylor Kingston should
think that some version does not exist is perhaps to do with his own
liking or not liking a subject?
> > ACTUALLY, like the Lasker incident, I don't give a damn if he said one
> > thing or another - or whatever exact words he used.
>
> That's a big difference between us, Phil. I care about historical
> factual accuracy. I do give a damn whether Capa said this or that, and
> I care about his exact words.
Really? Do tell us why.
At the same time, tell us if you care what language his exact words
were spoken in. Also tell us if it matters to you if he wrote them
himself, or someone else recorded the words he used? Tell us if you
think its important that the recorder spoke the same language as
Capablanca.
> I think you're careless, even reckless
> with facts. You toss out some improbable nonsense, and expect us to
> take it on faith.
Are you referring to yourself in the plural?
As for reckless - let's say I read the Lasker Nottingham record and
cited you a well-respected English chess historian's report in an
encyclopedia you also possessed. Is that reckless? Let's say that
Hooper was wrong... does that make me reckless in citing him as a
source? I don't think so. As matters progressed it's rather your own
insistence that you are correct which makes me doubt that you are. You
have any Nottingham sources written earlier than Hooper, BTW?
Sam in chess play. A move may seem improbably to any collection of
1500 players, but strong players will still play it.
I am not asking anyone to take chess moves on faith - neither any
other fact. Why should anyone believe your assertions either?
> And you get all huffy when anyone questions you in
> the least. I enjoy exposing your gaffes, and watching you huff.
You haven't exposed anything at all except your own ego. Of course,
you don't think of it like that, not if you are 'exposing me' or Larry
Evans, or Ray Keene - [but never Edward Winter - even though the last
Kingpin had to be withdrawn and reprinted since it was full of errors]
> Frankly, Phil, your statement "I don't give a damn if he said one
> thing or another" carries a strong whiff of personal dishonesty.
I do not care if I reported a paraphrase or his exact words - that is
the sense of it. Gaining the sense of what he said it more honest than
some pedant telling me he never said aught and I am making it up.
> At
> first you assured us "Capablanca said X." That's like saying, "I
> promise that this is true."
Plain lying! Have I not written 3 times that it may have been a
paraphrase and that I thought it was from Mea Cuba? Whereas you are
insisting I never said that, and now commit the idiocy of doing the
same thing as you accuse me of
ROFL!!!
You are inventing things I said and putting them into speech marks.
perhaps your subconscious is trying to tell you something?
> Now you're saying "I don't give a damn,"
> in effect "My earlier promise means nothing."
More invented speech, which is getting more and more ramped up, to
include the word 'promise' which I never used at all. Secondly, its
the exact words I do not give a damn about, not if Capa said something
very like that. Get it? This is the 4th time I have said that.
> You do this sort of
> thing repeatedly, oblivious to any concern for your own integrity.
And now I can, and the entire newsgroup can, see why you hold your
opinions of others as you do.
You ignore what I write and start inventing on it - in strong contrast
to any clarifications I've made - to end up in the completely
untenable position of inventing my own speech and ideas.
This has nothing to do with me whatsoever, it's all about you!
> > I simply
> > remembered the sense of it.
>
> That very much remains to be seen.
Yes it does. I recommend that no one believes anything or takes
important actions based on this exchange.
> As I said, once I have Cabrera
> Infante's book, I will post the relevant facts here. The local
> libraries don't have it, but it can be easily and cheaply obtained
> from abebooks.com. Should take about a week.
Yes, you have said that before.
> > I BTW once copied out the entire Capa article and posted it to this
> > very newsgroup -
>
> You mean this?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nb5ngb
>
> That particular article most emphatically does not support your
> claim. It says nothing about the 1927 match, nothing negative about
> Alekhine, nothing even vaguely like "If that's chess, you can keep
> it."
>
> Or do you mean this?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lhjaz4
>
> The short bits there don't look like a complete article, and again
> there is nothing resembling your purported statement by Capablanca.
OK!
I will manage to keep on going, since as above, there is nothing
really urgent for me that I must resolve here. I see it is different
for you.
> BTW, Phil, in addition to claiming that Capa said "If that's chess,
> you can keep it," you said "_*_Famously_*_ the Cuban remarked 'If
> that's chess, you can keep it'" (emphasis added). If this remark is so
> famous, surely other sources besides Cabrera Infante have reported
> it.
Laugh. Reported it from Cuba?
> <snip remaining Innes irrelevancies>
The 'irrelevancies' which are snipped are usually evidence that the
writer is not as supposed to be, or some awkward facts are discarded
so that factlessness can be insisted upon, or even the resolution of
the matter is snipped, so that people who don't like resolving an
issue can continue to play their own views of it.
History is interesting this way. Quite often one writer can offer more
varied factual material than another, while still understanding even
less about them than a more modest offering.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
Translation: Phil has, yet again, fallen into a hole of his own
creation, and as usual he proceeds to dig himself deeper.
Prediction time. After "Mea Cuba" arrives, I will examine it and
post here any findings relevant to Phil's claim that Capablanca said
that Alekhine bored him and "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or
words to that effect) in reference to his 1927 WCh match. What will
happen then?
There are two possibilities: either the book supports Phil's claim,
or it does not. If it does, I will post the relevant quote(s) here and
acknowledge that my doubt was misplaced. If it does not, however, one
or more of the following will happen:
Innes will insist that some other book or publication proves his
claim. However, he will never be able to produce a relevant citation.
Whatever "Mea Cuba" does contain in the way of statement(s) by
Capablanca, Phil will insist they prove his claim. If Capa wrote, say,
"Feliz Navidad" or "Havana is hot in the summer," Phil will consider
it a reasonable paraphrase of "If that's chess, you can keep it."
Or conversely, Phil will insist that his statement — "Capablanca was
simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study Alekhine for 2
years, and out Capa, Capa. Famously the Cuban remarked, 'if that's
chess, you can keep it,'" — actually means something quite different,
which is supported by "Mea Cuba."
Phil will produce completely irrelevant citations, say, something
14th century from the OED, and claim that they prove his claim.
Phil will take a philosophical tack, asking how we know what
anything really means anyway. From this he will argue that one written
statement can be seen as equivalent to any other written statement.
Phil will froth at the mouth, saying "F--- off, Kingston!"
Readers are invited to post their own predictions.
ChessFire
> Translation: Phil has, yet again, fallen into a hole of his own
> creation, and as usual he proceeds to dig himself deeper.
Look Kingston, there is nothing here to argue about, only an excuse
for you to get pissy about your OWN certainties, and why others don't
share them.
> Prediction time. After "Mea Cuba" arrives, I will examine it and
> post here any findings relevant to Phil's claim that Capablanca said
> that Alekhine bored him and "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or
> words to that effect) in reference to his 1927 WCh match. What will
> happen then?
What will happen is that it the book will contain something like I
said or it will not.
> There are two possibilities: either the book supports Phil's claim,
> or it does not.
True.
> If it does, I will post the relevant quote(s) here and
> acknowledge that my doubt was misplaced. If it does not, however, one
> or more of the following will happen:
>
> Innes will insist that some other book or publication proves his
> claim.
Well, since I read it, I suppose that is simply logical - but as for
insist, you are the only person here insisting on something.
>
And here Taylor Kinsgston leaves the realm of any logic or historical
research - displaying no form of interest at all, and instead a
fanatisicm based on what he would like to believe. Same as with
Lasker, same as with Evans on Botvinnik. He predicts things. But
offered the real citation, wherever that may be, he ignores it.
> Whatever "Mea Cuba" does contain in the way of statement(s) by
> Capablanca, Phil will insist they prove his claim.
This is simply plain abuse from Kingston - who is the ONLY PERSON HERE
DOING ANY INSISTING
He can't admit that it doesn't matter to me very much, but it matters
to him.
What he is doing is predicting his own behavior.
> If Capa wrote, say,
> "Feliz Navidad" or "Havana is hot in the summer," Phil will consider
> it a reasonable paraphrase of "If that's chess, you can keep it."
This is the way Kingston conducts his research into things.
I predict that if the book does not contain the relevant citation then
Kingston will pronounce that Capablanca never said it. A logical
absurdity - but actually Kingston has already said this.
> Or conversely, Phil will insist that his statement — "Capablanca was
> simply bored by Alekhine, whose method was to study Alekhine for 2
> years, and out Capa, Capa. Famously the Cuban remarked, 'if that's
> chess, you can keep it,'" — actually means something quite different,
> which is supported by "Mea Cuba."
More lies from Kingston who is capable of even greater whoppers
himself.
'Show me,' said Kingston 'where it says Lasker came 8th.' And I did -
and then HE said it was wrong.
As usual he want to have it both ways - so that if the citation is
there he can declare it wrong, and if it's not he will declare it not
to exist.
> Phil will produce completely irrelevant citations, say, something
> 14th century from the OED, and claim that they prove his claim.
I do not wish to prove my claim. I said I think the anecdote was from
one book - but if it is not it is from another source!
Kingston by his cheap lampoon here wishes to portray this as being
slippery with the facts AFTER I voluntarily admitted a doubt.
> Phil will take a philosophical tack, asking how we know what
> anything really means anyway. From this he will argue that one written
> statement can be seen as equivalent to any other written statement.
>
> Phil will froth at the mouth, saying "F--- off, Kingston!"
>
> Readers are invited to post their own predictions.
I predict you will continue to misunderstand what others say because
your own ego is an unsubtle instrument, and while you think you are
being smart in public, I think readers know a mad-mullah when they
read one.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
BTW, Phil, did you happen to notice the exchange between Wlod
Holsztynksi and myself elsewhere in this thread? Wlod spoke of Smyslov
winning two Interzonals, and I politely corrected him, saying they
were Candidates Tournaments, not Interzonals. Rather than insist he
was right, or react with hostility, Wlod politely thanked me. On
another occasion, Wlod corrected me on something, and I courteously
acknowledged that he was right.
This is shows how gentleman can conduct discussions without rancor
and settle differences amicably. There might be a lesson for you in
there somewhere. But the sine qua non is that you must allow at least
the merest chance that you might be wrong.
Detectorist
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Can't we all just get along?" :)
help bot
wrote:
> > > You did, and what died was your credibility (yet again).
Must be one of those immortals, who can "die"
again and again, yet still live.
> > > Oh no, Phil. I'm going to get the book, and see if it does have the
> > > statement you believe it does. I will post my finding here.
I certainly hope Mr. Kingston reads through the
material this time, and doesn't merely "flip the
pages", as he must have done in his purported
search for Mr. Petrosian's commentary on
another matter.
> > > And you get all huffy when anyone questions you in
> > > the least. I enjoy exposing your gaffes, and watching you huff.
How odd that such an arrogant snot should take
offense at another for merely aping him.
> > You haven't exposed anything at all except your own ego. Of course,
> > you don't think of it like that, not if you are 'exposing me' or Larry
> > Evans, or Ray Keene - [but never Edward Winter - even though the last
> > Kingpin had to be withdrawn and reprinted since it was full of errors]
An interesting attempt to change the subject.
Of course, one is inclined to wonder /why/ the
subject needs changing-- is Dr. IMnes worried?
> > ROFL!!! [sic]
May he rest in peace.
> > > You do this sort of thing repeatedly, oblivious to any concern
> > > for your own integrity.
What integrity? You two seem to share more
than a few similar delusions.
> > You ignore what I write and start inventing on it - in strong contrast
> > to any clarifications I've made - to end up in the completely
> > untenable position of inventing my own speech and ideas.
It's called fiction, Dr. IMnes. Ask the librarian
to direct you to the other section-- where drab
non-fiction is organized in strict accordance
with the annoying Dewey decimal system.
> > This has nothing to do with me whatsoever, it's all about you!
Not in my system it isn't; in my system, it's
always about Sam Sloan-- even when it's not!
You see, Mr. Sloan is at the center of everything,
but just a bit off-center (there are no elipses, just
perfect circles in my system). The beauty of my
system is that everyone readily agrees that Mr.
Sloan is in fact off-center.
> > > > I simply remembered the sense of it.
> > > That very much remains to be seen.
> > Yes it does.
"Great" minds think alike.
> > > As I said, once I have Cabrera
> > > Infante's book, I will post the relevant facts here.
One can only hope Mr. Kingston does not have
any more grave difficulties in deciphering the
"facts", this time around.
> > > BTW, Phil, in addition to claiming that Capa said "If that's chess,
> > > you can keep it," you said "_*_Famously_*_ the Cuban remarked 'If
> > > that's chess, you can keep it'" (emphasis added). If this remark is so
> > > famous, surely other sources besides Cabrera Infante have reported
> > > it.
If it is indeed a famous quotation, it ought to be
in the standard collections. Be sure to check the
entry for "Casablanca", just in case the quote's
source was Eric Schiller rather than, say, Ed
Winter.
> > The 'irrelevancies' which are snipped are usually evidence that the
> > writer is not as supposed to be, or some awkward facts are discarded
> > so that factlessness can be insisted upon, or even the resolution of
> > the matter is snipped, so that people who don't like resolving an
> > issue can continue to play their own views of it.
Dr. Blair could have a field day with that one.
How many hundreds of times has the Great Dr.
IMnes himself snipped that whch he found to be
"awkward"... so he could "continue to play" his
own views?
> Translation: Phil has, yet again, fallen into a hole of his own
> creation, and as usual he proceeds to dig himself deeper.
Feeling smart for having figured that out /all by
yourself/? As I pointed out to Sanny recently,
Dr. IMnes is the man to beat when it comes to
idiocy, and in order for Sanny to *be* The Man,
he must first beat The Man. In my humble
opinion, that is a very tall order-- best suited to
trained professionals; don't try it at home, kids.
> Prediction time. After "Mea Cuba" arrives, I will examine it and
> post here any findings relevant to Phil's claim that Capablanca said
> that Alekhine bored him and "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or
> words to that effect) in reference to his 1927 WCh match. What will
> happen then?
World peace? (The standard answer for tough
questions in certain other contests.)
> Phil will froth at the mouth, saying "F--- off, Kingston!"
That's not a prediction. A prediction is where
one asserts that some unlikely event will occur,
and if it comes true we must conclude that the
predictor must have had some special means
of "knowing" in advance... such as a revelation
from God, understanding of some process of
nature, or else he has invented a time-travel
machine and we need to kill him and grab it so
we can go back and watch Paul Morphy thump
the Duke and the Count.
Of course Dr. IMnes will get angry and froth
at the mouth. Of course he will curse and
bare his yellow teeth and stomp his feet and
throw himself on the ground in a fit of anguish.
That's not prediction; it's repetition of position,
only you can't claim any draw.
-- help bot
EZoto
<taylor....@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 6:05�pm, EZoto <xeuclid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > �As should be obvious, Phil, because Winter, who is an expert on
>> >Capablanca, considers it so.
>>
>> I'd like to go off topic a bit here. �Since Winter is an expert on
>> Capablanca what does he think of Reshevsky when he was a child playing
>> chess. �I have seen some of his games and they were pretty impressive
>> for his age too.
>
> You seem to be asking if Winter has offered an opinion on the
>relative quality of Reshevsky's and Capablanca's games as youngsters.
Yes.
>Do I understand you correctly?
Yes
>If so, that is not the sort of thing Winter generally does.
>He is not an analyst of games; rather he is a
>collector of historical data.
Curious as someone who does collect historical data I would figure
would still have an opinion or even heard of the opinions of others.
EZoto
Mike Murray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
Evidently, Taylor was being charitable. It seems at one time, you not
only claimed Lasker came in 8th, but LAST. :-)
>'Show me,' said Kingston 'where it says Lasker came 8th.' And I did -
>and then HE said it was wrong.
On 11/13/06, Innes wrote:
"And here is the cross table for the tournament. Seems like Lasker
did not only come 8th, but came last!"
Taylor Kingston
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:34:22 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
I'm sure that Winter has collected plenty of annotated games from
the boyhoods of both Capablanca and Reshevsky. However, I don't recall
him ever publishing any systematic comparison of the annotators'
opinions. You might want to try going to Winter's site:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
and entering "Capablanca" and "Reshevsky" into the search engine,
along with any other potentially relevant terms (e.g. prodigy,
comparison, early games etc.), and see if what you want comes up.
I can recall reading only one qualitative evaluation of the young
Reshevsky's games, and that so long ago I don't even remember the
author offhand (perhaps Reinfeld or Edward Lasker). The gist of it,
IIRC, was that compared to other prodigies such as Morphy and
Capablanca, whose games were relatively clear and free-flowing,
Reshevsky's style was more dense and complicated; I seem to recall the
word "crabbed." I'll check a few likely books and see if I can find
it.
As far as their head-to-head record in serious play goes, Reshevsky
and Capa were even: +1 -1 =4, over the years 1935-38. Sammy won at
Margate 1935, Capa at Nottingham 1936. Of course both were adults by
then.
parrt...@cs.com
When Samy Met Charlie
Samuel Reshevsky (1911–1992) was a Polish child prodigy who gave an
exhibition tour in Europe after World War I. "You play war. I play
chess," he told a general. "I just make good moves and wait for the
other guys to make mistakes," he told perplexed reporters.
In 1920 his parents settled in America and dispatched the boy wonder
on an arduous cross-country tour for two years which drew incredibly
large audiences. In 1921 Sammy met the world’s most famous movie star
and a posed publicity photo showed them playing chess while Charlie
Chaplin was editing The Kid in his Hollywood studio. My Autobiography,
penned by him in 1964 at age 75, recalls this encounter.
"He was to give an exhibition at the Athletic Club, playing chess with
20 men at the same time, among them Dr. Griffiths, the champion of
California. He had a thin, pale, intense little face with large eyes
that stared belligerently when he met people. I
had been warned that he was temperamental and that he seldom shook
hands with anybody.
After his manager had introduced us and spoken a few words, the boy
stood staring at me in silence. I went on with my cutting, looking at
strips of film. A moment later I turned to him. ‘Do you like peaches?
‘Yes,’ he answered. ‘Well, we have a tree full of them in the garden;
you can climb up and get some—at the same time get one for
me.’ His face lit up. ‘Ooh, good! Where’s the tree?’ ‘Carl will show
you,’ I said, referring to my publicity man.
Fifteen minutes later he returned, elated, with several peaches. That
was the beginning of our friendship. ‘Can you play chess?’ he asked. I
had to admit that I could not. ‘I’ll teach you. Come see me play
tonight. I’m playing twenty men at the
same time,’ he said with braggadocio. I promised and said I would take
him to supper afterwards. ‘Good, I’ll get through early.’
It was not necessary to understand chess to appreciate the drama of
that evening: twenty middle-aged men pouring over their chessboards,
thrown into a dilemma by a child. To watch him walking about in the
center of the U-shaped table, going
from one to another was a drama in itself. There was something
surrealistic about the scene as an audience of 300 or more sat in
tiers on both sides of a hall, watching in silence a child pitting his
brains against serious old men.
The boy was amazing, yet he disturbed me, for I felt as I watched that
concentrated little face flushing red, then draining white, that he
was paying a price with his health.
‘Here!’ A player would call, and the child would walk over, study the
board a few seconds, then abruptly make a move or call ‘Checkmate!’
and a murmur of laughter would go through the audience. I saw him
checkmate eight players in rapid
succession, which evoked laughter and applause.
And now he was studying the board of Dr. Griffiths. The audience was
silent. Suddenly he made a move, then turned away and saw me. His face
lit up-and he waved, indicating that e would not be long. After
checkmating several other players, he returned to Dr. Griffiths, who
was still deeply concentrating. ‘Haven’t you moved yet?’ said the boy
impatiently. The doctor shook his head. ‘Oh, come on, hurry up!’
Griffiths smiled. The child looked at him fiercely. ‘You can’t beat
me! If you
move this, I’ll move that!’ He named in rapid succession seven or
eight moves ahead. ‘We’ll be here all night, so let’s call it a draw.’
The doctor acquiesced."
Sammy won 15 and drew 5 against some of the best players in Los
Angeles. At an earlier exhibition in a department store he won 9, drew
2, and lost to Don Mugridge, age 16. Referee Harry Borochow recalls
that Sammy burst out crying and sobbed, "I wouldn’t mind if I lost to
an older man, but to a little boy..."
How well did Sammy play in those days? Exhibition games don’t mean all
that much, but take a look at his draw with Borochow in the Athletic
Club.
RESHEVSKY vs. BOROCHOW
Old Indian Defense, Simultaneous Exhibition, 1921
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 Bf5 4 f3 Nbd7 5 e4 Bg6 6 Nge2 e5 7 Be3 Be7
8 Rc1 0-0 9 Ng3 Re8 10 Bd3 c6 11 Qd2 Bf8 12 0-0 Qc7 13 f4 exf4 14
Bxf4 Nh5 15 Nxh5 Bxh5 16 c5 f6 17 Qf2 a6 18 Qg3 Rad8 19 Kh1 Bg6
20 cxd6 Qb6 21 Na4 Qxd4 22 Rc4 Qa7 23 R4c1 Bxe4 24 Bc4 Bd5 25
Bxd5 cxd5 26 Qd3 d4 27 Rc7 Ne5 28 Bxe5 Rxe5 29 Qb3 Kh8 30 Rxb7
Qa8 31 d7 Re7 32 Qd5 Re5 33 Qc6 Re6 34 Qxe6 Qxb7 35 Rxf6 Qb4!
Draw
Borochow said: "Here Sammy demonstrated the draw by 36 h3 Qxa4 37 Rxf8!
+ Rxf8 38 Qe7 Qd1+ 39 Kh2 Qf1 40 d8/Q Qf4 with perpetual check."
Alas, Sammy finished last in New York in 1922, his first real
tournament with five masters. The victor Edward Lasker said that after
two days the boy was pale and his eyes seemed lifeless. A month later
his parents were charged with "undue exploitation." The case made
headlines but was dismissed when the court appointed a guardian to
oversee the boy’s education. His benefactor was Julius Rosenwald,
founder of Sears & Roebuck. Sammy finally attended public school at 12
and later graduated from the University of Chicago.
In 1935 he resumed his chess career at Margate, England, where he
created a sensation by taking first in a field of 10 ahead of the
legendary Capablanca. Sammy went on to capture the U.S. Championship
eight times, but he couldn’t earn a decent living from chess. He
worked as a certified public accountant and an insurance salesman when
he realized the Soviets would always block his path to the world
championship.
In his first tournament at New York 1922 Sammy won once, lost twice,
and drew twice in five games. Here he gets demolished by Jacob
Bernstein who later ran a chess club on Fourteenth Street. I visited
once or twice in 1946 when I began attending Stuyvesant High School in
that neighborhood and vaguely remember a haze of smoke, noise, and
squalor, plus a bunch of seedy characters playing pinochle. Jacob or
"Yankele" as everyone called him, was short, fat, and balding with a
winning smile who served hot tea in glasses with ornate silver
holders.
BERNSTEIN vs. RESHEVSKY
Cambridge Springs Variation, New York, 1922
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5 e3 c6 6 Bd3 Qa5 7 Bh4 Bb4
8 Nge2 Ne4 9 Qc2 f5 10 f3 Nxc3 11 bxc3 Bd6 12 0–0 Qc7 13 Bg3 Nf6
14 e4 fxe4 15 fxe4 dxe4 16 Bxe4 0–0 17 Rae1 Bd7 18 Bd3 Rae8 19 c5
Bxg3 20 Nxg3 b6 21 Ne4 Nxe4 22 Bxe4 h6 23 Qe2 Qd8 24 cxb6 axb6
25 Rxf8+ Rxf8 26 Bxc6 Bc8 27 Ba4 Qf6 28 Bb3 Kh8 29 Rf1 Qxf1+
30 Qxf1 Rxf1+ 31 Kxf1 Kg8 32 g3 Kf7 33 Kf2 Bb7 34 Ke3 Ke7 35 c4
g5 36 c5 b5 37 a3 Bc6 38 Bc2 Bd7 39 Be4 Be8 40 Kd3 Kd8 41 Kc3
Black Resigns
FOLLOWED BY PHOTO (page 209) of Sammy, 11, competing in his first
tournament at New York 1922.
Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans
EZoto
>Alas, Sammy finished last in New York in 1922, his first real
>tournament with five masters. The victor Edward Lasker said that after
>two days the boy was pale and his eyes seemed lifeless. A month later
>his parents were charged with "undue exploitation." The case made
>headlines but was dismissed when the court appointed a guardian to
>oversee the boy�s education. His benefactor was Julius Rosenwald,
>founder of Sears & Roebuck. Sammy finally attended public school at 12
>and later graduated from the University of Chicago.
>
read and believed that his parents were strict about his education and
wanted him to focus on school and chess as a sideline. I didn't know
a guardian was appointed to ovesee his education.
EZoto
help bot
> Evidently, Taylor was being charitable. It seems at one time, you not
> only claimed Lasker came in 8th, but LAST. :-)
>
> >'Show me,' said Kingston 'where it says Lasker came 8th.' And I did -
> >and then HE said it was wrong.
>
> On 11/13/06, Innes wrote:
>
> "And here is the cross table for the tournament. Seems like Lasker
> did not only come 8th, but came last!"
For the record, I have an old chess journal in which
a crosstable is presented such that /it seems/ there
was but one contestant! Of course, knowing there
must have been more than one player leads the
reader to search for the rest of the table, and indeed
it still seems bizarre in that a 1400-rated player won
the event despite the participation of several of his
vast superiors. As the top finisher, he appeared
alone on the table while all the other players' results
were listed in another column-- the crosstable being
split into two pieces to fit the page's format.
Gee, I wonder if Mr. Kingston is feeling especially
proud at this moment for having bested Dr. IMnes
at looking up ancient crosstable results? Isn't that
a bit like feeling proud of having beaten the GetClub
program on Baby level? Or like having caught LP
in a lie... or being a Queen up and finding a nice
combination which leads perforce to checkmate?
Isn't it akin to being Godzilla, and winning a "fight"
with Bambi? Or getting to move twice in a row
on every turn, against an opponent who is a rank
beginner? Surely, there must be someone here
who can present a better challenge for Mr.
Kingston's pedantry skills-- Rob Mitchell perhaps?
It is, well, embarrassing to watch him go at poor
Dr. IMnes, handicapped as he is... .
-- help bot
Jürgen R.
Goichberg in 4th place, but 2 thru 5 are very close.
ChessFire
>
>
> Evidently, Taylor was being charitable. It seems at one time, you not
> only claimed Lasker came in 8th, but LAST. :-)
The give away would be the word 'seems', no? And as our Taylor will
tell you, the chart does show him last - with no indicator of other
players. Maybe it was one of those tourneys with a star group in it,
but with other players too?
> >'Show me,' said Kingston 'where it says Lasker came 8th.' And I did -
> >and then HE said it was wrong.
>
> On 11/13/06, Innes wrote:
>
> "And here is the cross table for the tournament. Seems like Lasker
> did not only come 8th, but came last!"
This issue is of grave importance to chess, since the reason it came
about was that our Taylor was pumping up Lasker's standing in the
world including the Nottingham event. I asked him how he could explain
Lasker's poor showing at Nottingham?
Given that context, our Taylor decided not to contest the point or
Lasker's strength at that time - and instead argued the was 7/8th
instead of 8th, as if that were sufficient.
On this occasion he has said some odd things about Capablanca's
character and what he thinks out of context. Doesn't seem out of
context to me or Bruce Pandolfini who currently has a few notes on
Capa at Chesscafe.
Taylor is again not content to support his own contention or challenge
of Capa's character, and instead has chosen to contest the exact words
spoken by Capablanca, and where they are printed. Ludicrously he
suggests to everyone that if they are not in the essay I mentioned I
will then say they are recorded elsewhere... in fact he 'predicts' I
will do this - since indeed I must.
Therefore he has left his own context entirely, with the result that
if I or anyone else finds a fair paraphrase of what I said, he Our
Taylor will win!
Cordially, Phil Innes
Mike Murray
>Early counting shows Sloan with a commanding lead.
>Goichberg in 4th place, but 2 thru 5 are very close.
Did Ahmadinejad decide to help out a fellow believer ?
Taylor Kingston
As usual, when our Phil is caught out, he becomes a squid, squirting
out clouds of ink in hopes of distracting people from his mistakes.
Except that his new clouds contain more errors than the first.
Responding to every bit of nonsense in the above would take all day,
but I'll make a few comments:
1. Innes writes: "Doesn't seem out of context to me or Bruce
Pandolfini who currently has a few notes on Capa at Chesscafe." Innes
either can't read, or is telling an outright lie. Here is Pandolfini's
current column:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf
It mentions Capablanca but once: "However, now you know that you
played like Capablanca or Kasparov for some moves." Furthermore, the
person saying this is not Pandolfini. How Innes counts one offhand
mention as "a few notes" defies understanding. Plus nothing in the
column has any bearing on anything Innes has been saying here.
2. Innes writes: "I asked [Kingston] how he could explain Lasker's
poor showing at Nottingham?" Innes may have asked that, but it cannot
be explained, since Lasker in fact did not have a "poor showing" at
Nottingham 1936. He scored +6 -3 =5, which included a plus score
against the four other world champions in the field (+1 =3 vs.
Capablanca, Botvinnik, Euwe and Alekhine). Not bad for an old man of
67.
Rather than a poor showing, his biographer Hannak called it "one of
the greatest achievements in Lasker's long career ... and certainly a
most worthy conclusion to one of the greatest tournament records ever
achieved by any one player." (Hannak, "Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a
Chess Master" p. 299)
3. My thanks to help-bot for resurrecting Innes' absurd 2006 claim
that "Lasker did not only come 8th, but came last!" at Nottingham
1936. The plain fact is Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th-8th in a field
of 15. And I would hope that even Innes would recognize that it is
mathematically impossible to finish last in a tournament with a plus
score.
I would hope that, but since Phil, like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen,
makes a habit of believing impossible things, I will not hold my
breath.
ChessFire
wrote:
As usual when Our Taylor cannot make a direct reply he resorts to
squids, Hitlers, Mussolinis and Stalins. But here squids...
> Except that his new clouds contain more errors than the first.
> Responding to every bit of nonsense in the above would take all day,
> but I'll make a few comments:
>
> 1. Innes writes: "Doesn't seem out of context to me or Bruce
> Pandolfini who currently has a few notes on Capa at Chesscafe." Innes
> either can't read, or is telling an outright lie. Here is Pandolfini's
> current column:
note copyright abrogation... but as to the context that Kingstion
avoids, nothing at all...
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf
>
> It mentions Capablanca but once: "However, now you know that you
> played like Capablanca or Kasparov for some moves." Furthermore, the
> person saying this is not Pandolfini. How Innes counts one offhand
> mention as "a few notes" defies understanding.
You speak for your own understanding, I see. It defies it, as you
would likely say, being suitably vague about what is any context.
And the context is Capablanca's orientation to chess and to life.
The sad aspect of all this is that both Kingston and the Dwarf Winter,
who does not play chess, have decided to lionize Capablanca. How
ironical that is, since despite any and all facts, they are a world
away from Capablanca's orientation to life, not chess.
How utterly absurd that Winter should be cited as an 'expert' on
Capablanca, whereas Capa was a bit of a lad, and Winter doesn't even
play the game of chess. Somehow the librarian in Winter and Kingston
makes a claim on Capa, but I personally think neither of these blokes
could move their hips in any Latin dance.
> Plus nothing in the
> column has any bearing on anything Innes has been saying here.
Except of course the context. Which had to do, more than Kingston
honestly reports, on Capa's 'laziness' to chess, preferring a more
active attention to LIFE. Pandolfini's comment is lost of Kingston, as
will be that of the Cuban author he has yet to read :)
> 2. Innes writes: "I asked [Kingston] how he could explain Lasker's
> poor showing at Nottingham?" Innes may have asked that, but it cannot
> be explained, since Lasker in fact did not have a "poor showing" at
> Nottingham 1936. He scored +6 -3 =5, which included a plus score
> against the four other world champions in the field (+1 =3 vs.
> Capablanca, Botvinnik, Euwe and Alekhine). Not bad for an old man of
> 67.
A poor showing is not coming in 7th or 8th? I beg to differ.
Especially since as I wrote Kingston claimed he was strong thoughout
his career, here is evidence that strong means 7th or 8th in England.
I think I win my point.
> Rather than a poor showing, his biographer Hannak called it "one of
> the greatest achievements in Lasker's long career ... and certainly a
> most worthy conclusion to one of the greatest tournament records ever
> achieved by any one player." (Hannak, "Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a
> Chess Master" p. 299)
In that case I beg to differ with his biographer. Coming in 7th or 8th
was certainly NOT the best of his career - it was the WORST he ever
achieved.
> 3. My thanks to help-bot for resurrecting Innes' absurd 2006 claim
> that "Lasker did not only come 8th, but came last!" at Nottingham
> 1936. The plain fact is Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th-8th in a field
> of 15.
But you cheat. In your own book [Sunnucks] did I not reference that he
came last in the table presented there by Hooper? And the other
players were not appreciable? Thereby he came last among all the
strong players, and was the last name worth mentioning in here
encyclopedia?
> And I would hope that even Innes would recognize that it is
> mathematically impossible to finish last in a tournament with a plus
> score.
>
> I would hope that, but since Phil, like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen,
Up your red queen buddy!
> makes a habit of believing impossible things, I will not hold my
> breath.
A sexual reference?
What is this fanatic actually arguing?
This is the guy who wrote to me about Averbakh. I told him of his KGB
connections, citing two Russian sources, and in his interview with
Averbakh [one I declined, BTW, despite an opportunity long before
Kingston] Kingston never asked a single questions about it Averbakh
and the KGB. Nothing. Even after asking me and receiving the response
from Russians that Averbakh may not speak the truth - not one question
from Kingston.
That is why this stuff is so hot for Kingston, he has his heros who
may not be challenged, and he will ignore the hell out of how they
actually were. I have great sympathy thereby with Larry Evans who also
knew Soviets firsthand, and suffered Kingston's attention.
Neither has Taylor Kingston taken the slightest note about Boris
Gulko's testimony about who oppressed him, and other Jewish refusniks
in Russia.
And since I have written that some dozen times here, let that be well
known, once again. I am not Jewish, I am a Celt, for 5,000 years. It's
not about this or that sect, but about the oppression of minorities
which it takes someone real to address and from real feeling.
Something we do not get from Kingston or Winter. We get that from such
as Ray Keene.
That is the exact level of interest this Kingston guy has in 'facts'.
Phil Innes
William Hyde
as I don't have much in the way of resources here) but I have found
what might be precursors to the comments, whether they were later
made by Capa or not.
At at least one point, Capa did talk about being bored while playing
Alekhine. Winter gives a translation of an interview Capa gave in
Mundial, an Uruguayan magazine, in 1927:
" Each year, or rather each day, which passes diminishes my interest
in the game. Other matters have stimulated my mind - perhaps as a
result of that kind of boredom that arises within me when I play a
game - and at present it is truly painful for me to have to be
enslaved for five hours at a chessboard, indulging in intense mental
effort which gives me no great personal satisfaction".
So here we have Capa saying that he was bored while playing Alekhine,
but not that he was specifically bored by Alekhine. He might have
said that elsewhere, or a journalist, less gentlemanly than Capa at
this time, might have twisted the above quote. In this interview, at
any rate, Capa is magnanimous:
"The world championship is in good hands. I do not believe that any
modern master will be able to seize the title the Slave master now
holds ..."
Presumably with the exception of Capablanca.
Later he goes on to say that good as Alekhine is, he didn't play
better than before in the match, but Capa played worse. It's
patronizing but not much in the way of denigration (though he takes
the opportunity to take a mild swipe at Lasker, as if he feared a
Lasker-Alekhine match might be in the cards) but his comments might
have been been "improved" by a journalist.
If Capa made such pointed comments, I suspect we will find that he
made them some years later, after fruitless match negotiations. His
experiences with Lasker before the war would have taught him how a few
careless words can stop a match.
William Hyde
Taylor Kingston
Friends, our poor Phil Innes has really lost it today. Details
below:
On Jul 22, 4:39 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:38 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
>
> > 1. Innes writes: "Doesn't seem out of context to me or Bruce
> > Pandolfini who currently has a few notes on Capa at Chesscafe." Innes
> > either can't read, or is telling an outright lie. Here is Pandolfini's
> > current column:
>
> > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf
>
> > It mentions Capablanca but once: "However, now you know that you
> > played like Capablanca or Kasparov for some moves." Furthermore, the
> > person saying this is not Pandolfini. How Innes counts one offhand
> > mention as "a few notes" defies understanding.
>
> You speak for your own understanding, I see. It defies it, as you
> would likely say, being suitably vague about what is any context.
>
> And the context is Capablanca's orientation to chess and to life.
The Pandolfini column you cite says absolutely nothing about
"Capablanca's orientation to chess and to life." As I showed above, it
barely mentions Capablanca at all, that tiny bit is irrelevant, and
was not even written by Pandolfini.
> > Plus nothing in the
> > column has any bearing on anything Innes has been saying here.
>
> Except of course the context. Which had to do, more than Kingston
> honestly reports, on Capa's 'laziness' to chess, preferring a more
> active attention to LIFE. Pandolfini's comment
> is lost of Kingston,
What comment, Phil? Pandolfini does not mention Capablanca even
once. Here, yet again, is a link to the column in question:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf
Where in it do you find what you claim? Where does Pandolfini say
*_ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT CAPABLANCA_*, let alone gives "a few notes on
Capa" or anything about "Capablanca's orientation to chess and to
life"? And don't give us any excuse about how you can't get at it
because the decorators have a tarp over it.
> A poor showing is not coming in 7th or 8th? I beg to differ.
> Especially since as I wrote Kingston claimed he was strong thoughout
> his career, here is evidence that strong means 7th or 8th in England.
I think you're a pretentious fool. Your misunderstanding of
Nottingham 1936 is growing by leaps and bounds. Lasker finished ahead
of all the English players. The Brits — Tylor, Alexander, Thomas and
Winter — occupied the last four places, with a combined score of
13½-42½.
> I think I win my point.
To quote Graham Chapman in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," I
think you're a loony.
> > 3. My thanks to help-bot for resurrecting Innes' absurd 2006 claim
> > that "Lasker did not only come 8th, but came last!" at Nottingham
> > 1936. The plain fact is Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th-8th in a field
> > of 15.
>
> But you cheat.
Quoting your own words is cheating? Citing established facts is
cheating? Phil, have you finally gone completely insane? I mean we all
know you've been mostly mad for some time, but now you seem to be
completely round the twist.
> In your own book [Sunnucks] did I not reference that he
> came last in the table presented there by Hooper?
Jeez, Phil, is there no lie you won't try? There is ABSOLUTELY NO
SUCH TABLE in the Sunnucks encyclopedia.
> And the other
> players were not appreciable? Thereby he came last among all the
> strong players, and was the last name worth mentioning in here
> encyclopedia?
Again, Sunnucks' encyclopedia has no "table" of any sort for
Nottingham 1936. It _is_ on a list of major tournaments 1851-1949 on
pages 463-464. But this list gives only 1st-place finishers, AND IT
EVEN GETS THAT WRONG! It says **_Flohr_** co-won with Capablanca.
Flohr finished =7th-8th with Lasker.
Your faith in the Sunnucks book is badly misplaced.
> That is the exact level of interest this Kingston guy has in 'facts'.
That's right, Phil. I like facts straight. You, obviously, prefer to
make them up out of thin air.
help bot
wrote:
> 3. My thanks to help-bot for resurrecting Innes' absurd 2006 claim
> that "Lasker did not only come 8th, but came last!" at Nottingham
> 1936. The plain fact is Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th-8th in a field
> of 15. And I would hope that even Innes would recognize that it is
> mathematically impossible to finish last in a tournament with a plus
> score.
Perhaps that list was intended to show only
the prize winners, or some other subset.
Anyway, it was not I, but Mr. Murray who pulled
this out of the archives. All I did was mention a
very similar incident, in which a table of results
/seemed/, at least for a moment, quite different
from the reality. (Further investigation revealed
that this was simply clumsy formatting.)
Take a look at the Great Dr. IMnes' careful in-
sertion of the weasel word, /seemed/; this is a
clear signal that the pedant should *not* take
this particular opportunity to pounce, as all the
escape routes have not been cut off; well, we
should not be surprised when an over-eager
pedant jumps the gun, and leaps like this, in-
stead of patiently biding his time, waiting for
that perfect moment when there is absolutely
no escaping the net... .
-- help bot
help bot
> How utterly absurd that Winter should be cited as an 'expert' on
> Capablanca
The enmity Dr. IMnes feels toward Mr. Winter
is palpable. But what is the source of this deep
anguish? (See below.)
> A sexual reference?
Dr. Freud might have interpreted this random
interjection of sex by Dr. IMnes as reflecting some
deep psychological problem-- especially in view of
how routinely it occurs.
> That is why this stuff is so hot for Kingston, he has his heros who
> may not be challenged
Larry Evans... Larry Parr... GM Adorjan...
> and he will ignore the hell out of how they
> actually were. I have great sympathy thereby with Larry Evans
What I said.
> who also knew Soviets firsthand, and suffered Kingston's attention.
But what of Rockin' Ray Keene, whose attentions
were not spared with regard to TK's constructive
criticisms? It would seem that Dr. IMnes is one
eye blind... the other cocked a tad sideways.
> Neither has Taylor Kingston taken the slightest note about Boris
> Gulko's testimony about who oppressed him, and other Jewish refusniks
> in Russia.
Have they committed some spelling error which
requires the pedant's correction, one wonders?
> And since I have written that some dozen times here, let that be well
> known, once again. I am not Jewish, I am a Celt, for 5,000 years.
Wow-- and we thought Jerome Bibuld was
old... .
> It's not about this or that sect
Note the closeness in sound of that last term
to another which appears all too frequently in
Dr. IMnes' rants.
> but about the oppression of minorities
How peculiar. Why on Earth should anyone
care about oppression only when the victims
are of a particular variety? Is not /oppression/
itself the evil, regardless of who are the victims?
> which it takes someone real to address and from real feeling.
> Something we do not get from Kingston or Winter.
> We get that from such as Ray Keene.
We get a lot more from Mr. Keene than just that.
As we saw very briefly when the Acton Chancer
made an appearance here in rgc, we get rather
dismal chicanery, ad hominem lunacy, and lots,
lots more. Best of all, it was all free! The old
adage, if you can't stand the heat (or light), stay
out of the kitchen, seems apt. No doubt the
Acton Chancer will explain the brevity of his visit
here by insisting that he left voluntary due to a
dislike of the local climate, with its blistering
heat and blinding sun.
-- help bot
madams
.
> As usual when Our Taylor cannot make a direct reply he resorts to
> squids, Hitlers, Mussolinis and Stalins. But here squids...
Lads, lads, please! - enough of this squirting already...
Lasker placed = 7th/8th in a field of 15 in 1936 gasp... shock!...
If they're 8 players that means he was last....
The 'korch' himself is ill-pleased @ this bandying about of a 67yr old
beaver by a stinking hyena pack with their insistings & de-insistings
etc...
Enough!...return to matters illuminating, uplifting, informative & more
inspiring than this current, crude, ego-driven trash...
Thks lads..
m.
ChessFire
> On Jul 22, 4:39 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > How utterly absurd that Winter should be cited as an 'expert' on
> > Capablanca
>
> The enmity Dr. IMnes feels toward Mr. Winter
> is palpable. But what is the source of this deep
> anguish? (See below.)
If that's chess history, you can keep it.
> > A sexual reference?
>
> Dr. Freud might have interpreted this random
> interjection of sex by Dr. IMnes as reflecting some
> deep psychological problem-- especially in view of
> how routinely it occurs.
Might have? He would certainly interpret it sexually, in fact, all
subjects that way. He was a bit repressed you see.
> > That is why this stuff is so hot for Kingston, he has his heros who
> > may not be challenged
>
> Larry Evans... Larry Parr... GM Adorjan...
>
> > and he will ignore the hell out of how they
> > actually were. I have great sympathy thereby with Larry Evans
>
> What I said.
The difference between adoration of say, Adorjan, and respect for the
players is to attend to a degree of things, rather than absolutism.
That is usually attained by having a conversation and weighting
various points of view, in contradistinction to any insistence.
> > who also knew Soviets firsthand, and suffered Kingston's attention.
>
> But what of Rockin' Ray Keene, whose attentions
> were not spared with regard to TK's constructive
> criticisms?
Did he tell Ray how to play? Or was he content telling the guy who
once beat Botvinnik and who also smuggled samizdat out of Soviet
Russia what things were like there? I forget the exact nature of his
contribution.
> It would seem that Dr. IMnes is one
> eye blind... the other cocked a tad sideways.
It would seem to whom? What is the topic?
> > Neither has Taylor Kingston taken the slightest note about Boris
> > Gulko's testimony about who oppressed him, and other Jewish refusniks
> > in Russia.
>
> Have they committed some spelling error which
> requires the pedant's correction, one wonders?
>
> > And since I have written that some dozen times here, let that be well
> > known, once again. I am not Jewish, I am a Celt, for 5,000 years.
>
> Wow-- and we thought Jerome Bibuld was
> old... .
Lazarus Innes used to be my name. I Americanized it. Did I ever tell
you about Noah and the cockatoo?
> > It's not about this or that sect
>
> Note the closeness in sound of that last term
> to another which appears all too frequently in
> Dr. IMnes' rants.
You are trying to be vaguer than TK. I note you haven't actually made
a contribution to any topic so far - yet as usual to actually mention
one or attempt to discuss it is 'to rant'.
By being content-free you seem to set yourself rather above others,
no?
> > but about the oppression of minorities
>
> How peculiar. Why on Earth should anyone
> care about oppression only when the victims
> are of a particular variety? Is not /oppression/
> itself the evil, regardless of who are the victims?
Because these are the particular varieties under discussion. I suppose
you could care for people generally, but no one in particular - is
that your point?
> > which it takes someone real to address and from real feeling.
> > Something we do not get from Kingston or Winter.
> > We get that from such as Ray Keene.
>
> We get a lot more from Mr. Keene than just that.
Yes we do - but that does not dismiss Ray Keene, nor does you not
addressing any topic add up to squat.
> As we saw very briefly when the Acton Chancer
> made an appearance here in rgc, we get rather
> dismal chicanery, ad hominem lunacy, and lots,
> lots more.
Is that what you read - I remember quite a lot of chess, and also an
outright refutation of Winter's critical postures in the chess world
by nit-picking around the lives of others without ever joining in to
do what they did, and those exposing himself to being a human being
like the rest of us. Alas for him, Kingpin had taken 2 years to put
together and had to be withdrawn and reprinted because it contained so
many errors - the very things Winter nit-picks others about - and the
irony is that Ray Keene pointed it out to him ;)))
> Best of all, it was all free! The old
> adage, if you can't stand the heat (or light), stay
> out of the kitchen, seems apt.
If you can't talk chess or make a substantial contribution to
discussions, should you not stay out of the newsgroup?
> No doubt the
> Acton Chancer will explain the brevity of his visit
> here by insisting that he left voluntary due to a
> dislike of the local climate, with its blistering
> heat and blinding sun.
Is that how you think of yourself - egad!
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
DEIFIED DUUMVIRS
Greg Kennedy's latest silly claim is that this writer and GM
Larry Evans are heroes of Taylor Kingston. Perhaps we are even hero-
worshipped by the latter.
I think I may speak for GM Evans -- without even bothering to
consult him -- that we were both entirely unaware of being hero-
worshipped by Mr. Kingston. It never occurred to us. In our get-
togethers and phone conversations over the years, Larry and I have
talked of many things -- of walruses and kings. But truth to tell:
We never discussed Mr. Kingston as an ardent avatar at our shrine,
bent, mayhap, in silent prayer on our beatitudes, or voice raised in
glorious praise of our effulgent images or in ritual chants of the
kind heard in Russian Orthodox liturgies.
We are both frankly surprised to learn of this hero-worship. But
if someone MUST be worshipped, we will accept our responsibility as
deified duumvirs.
Yours, Larry Parr
RayLopez99
> Is that what you read - I remember quite a lot of chess, and also an
> outright refutation of Winter's critical postures in the chess world
> by nit-picking around the lives of others without ever joining in to
> do what they did, and those exposing himself to being a human being
> like the rest of us. Alas for him, Kingpin had taken 2 years to put
> together and had to be withdrawn and reprinted because it contained so
> many errors - the very things Winter nit-picks others about - and the
> irony is that Ray Keene pointed it out to him ;)))
>
Yeah that's ironic, if true. Winter the nitpicker getting nit picked!
RL
RayLopez99
> DEIFIED DUUMVIRS
>
> Greg Kennedy's latest silly claim is that this writer and GM
> Larry Evans are heroes of Taylor Kingston. Perhaps we are even hero-
> worshipped by the latter.
>
> I think I may speak for GM Evans -- without even bothering to
> consult him -- that we were both entirely unaware of being hero-
> worshipped by Mr. Kingston. It never occurred to us. In our get-
> togethers and phone conversations over the years, Larry and I have
> talked of many things -- of walruses and kings. But truth to tell:
> We never discussed Mr. Kingston as an ardent avatar at our shrine,
> bent, mayhap, in silent prayer on our beatitudes, or voice raised in
> glorious praise of our effulgent images or in ritual chants of the
> kind heard in Russian Orthodox liturgies.
>
Where is Larry now? Somebody semi famous is here in DC--they are
giving a chess simul this month at Arlington, VA. Let me Google
this...Dzindzichashvili will give a lecture and play a simultaneous
exhibition at the Arlington Chess Club on July 28 at 7 p.m.
Yes, Dzind*, he's sort of famous, I believe he won the US Open once.
RL
Taylor Kingston
>
> Greg Kennedy's latest silly claim is that this writer and GM
> Larry Evans are heroes of Taylor Kingston. Perhaps we are even hero-
> worshipped by the latter.
Larry, I think you have misunderstood Kennedy. He was saying you,
Evans and Adorjan were heroes to Innes, not me.
Innes: "That is why this stuff is so hot for Kingston, he has his
heros [sic] who may not be challenged ..."
Kennedy: "Larry Evans... Larry Parr... GM Adorjan..."
Innes was deriding me as someone who supposedly has "heroes who may
not be challenged." Kennedy rebutted this by giving names of those
who, in his opinion, Innes has viewed as unchallengeable heroes.
If I am wrong to interpret Kennedy thusly, he will no doubt correct
me here. But that is clearly his meaning as I see it.
In any event, this is a complete side track off the main issue,
which is Innes' fabrication of non-existent quotes. He's introduced at
least three whoppers here:
(1) Claiming that Capablanca said he was bored by Alekine's play in
their 1927 match, adding "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or words
to that effect),
(2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
(www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)supports this, and
(3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
Innes is able to present nothing supporting claim #1. Claim #2 is
demonstrably false, as anyone who reads Pandolifini's column can
easily see. And having a copy of Sunnucks' book myself, I can testify
that claim #3 is also totally false.
RayLopez99
wrote:
>
> In any event, this is a complete side track off the main issue,
> which is Innes' fabrication of non-existent quotes. He's introduced at
> least three whoppers here:
>
> (1) Claiming that Capablanca said he was bored by Alekine's play in
> their 1927 match, adding "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or words
> to that effect),
"or words to that effect" are weasel words by you.
> (2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
> (www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)supportsthis, and
There's no such site "www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)
supportsthis" gives an error: The requested URL /text/bruce121.pdf)
supportsthis was not found on this server.
> (3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
> table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
Maybe it does? Perhaps the EOC is in error. Mr. Winters has made a
career out of pointing out chess errors.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 23, 11:12 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In any event, this is a complete side track off the main issue,
> > which is Innes' fabrication of non-existent quotes. He's introduced at
> > least three whoppers here:
>
> > (1) Claiming that Capablanca said he was bored by Alekine's play in
> > their 1927 match, adding "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or words
> > to that effect),
>
> "or words to that effect" are weasel words by you.
Eh? No, it's Innes who wants the weasel words. My allowing that is
more lenient toward Innes; I'm not insisting on an exact quote. My
belief is that Capablanca never said anything like that in reference
to Alekhine and the 1927 match.
> > (2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
> > (www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)supportsthis, and
>
> There's no such site "www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)
> supportsthis" gives an error: The requested URL /text/bruce121.pdf)
> supportsthis was not found on this server.
Try this, Ray:
www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf
> > (3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
> > table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
> Maybe it does?
No, it does not. I have the book, Ray. Been through every page of
it. No such table.
> Perhaps the EOC is in error.
Yes, it has several errors I'm aware of. Probably others. Innes
seems to think it's infallible.
> Mr. Winters has made a
> career out of pointing out chess errors.
Yes, he has.
help bot
> > Dr. Freud might have interpreted this random
> > interjection of sex by Dr. IMnes as reflecting some
> > deep psychological problem-- especially in view of
> > how routinely it occurs.
> Might have? He would certainly interpret it sexually, in fact, all
> subjects that way. He was a bit repressed you see.
So, the Great Dr. IMnes is suggesting that it
follows that if one is repressed, he then must
see things a very specific way; interesting, as
we say in the biz.
> The difference between adoration of say, Adorjan, and respect for the
> players is to attend to a degree of things, rather than absolutism.
> That is usually attained by having a conversation and weighting
> various points of view, in contradistinction to any insistence.
To the contrary, Dr. IMnes stands out as the
sort of chap who is utterly incapable of weighing
various points of view, and instead he is seen to
be a very opinionated dogmatist here in rgc-- and
one with more than a few strange bedfellows.
> Lazarus Innes used to be my name. I Americanized it. Did I ever tell
> you about Noah and the cockatoo?
What a silly question. If there were a story
about Noah, it would of course involve not "a"
cockatoo, but rather, /two/ of them. I think
the doctor could use some remedial study.
> If you can't talk chess or make a substantial contribution to
> discussions, should you not stay out of the newsgroup?
Indeed, one wonders if Dr. IMnes the 2450 is
aware of the tidal wave of irony which sweeps
across the readers' screens right about here... .
LOL!
-- Acton Chancer, III
help bot
> > (2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
> > (www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)supportsthis, and
> There's no such site "www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)
> supportsthis" gives an error: The requested URL /text/bruce121.pdf)
> supportsthis was not found on this server.
Say, this chap is very nearly as dense as the
Great Dr. IMnes "himself"! Which is not to say
that any of the various and sundry net identities
of the 2450 nearly-an-IM is any "more dumberer"
than any other... but any self-respecting lowly
pedant would not deliberately inflate a single
typing mistake into something much larger, for
as we know, the pedant sees such a mistake
as worthy of note, no matter how small it may
be. Thus, deceitful conversions of one error
into another type of error is senseless, from
the petty pedant's viewpoint.
> > (3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
> > table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
> Maybe it does? Perhaps the EOC is in error. Mr. Winters has made a
> career out of pointing out chess errors.
Incorrect. The Great Pedant may have made
a career out of pointing out errors, but most of
them are not chess-specific.
It is a simple fact that EW could quite easily
switch to proof-reading elementary school
textbooks, or get a job at some random news-
paper in the proof-reading department. He
could write books on how to assemble thinga-
majigs, or become an editor of works on bait
fishing, for instance, or needlecraft.
The Great Pedant's skills are not in finding
chess errors-- as in chess analysis errors,
or in spotting strategical blunders that might
perhaps escape the notice of Fritz. This, I
believe, is what irks a few of the critics so--
that He is something of a non-chessplayer,
but one who obsesses over the very low
quality of published works by hacks such as
Ray Keene.
Spelling and date errors seem to make up
the bulk of EW's critical work, supplemented
by a peculiar interest in say, naming the
figures in very old photographs (yes, usually
chess players and their benefactors).
---
I went to the Web site chessmetrics.com
and found that the performance of EL at
Nottingham 1936 does not fit neatly into the
descriptions presented here in rgc by the
two antagonists, TK and PI. Instead, it is
apparent that EL's old age was a decisive
factor in proclaiming his result, a plus score,
to be of great note, whereas the Great Dr.
IMnes -- 2450 and very nearly an Imp --
was just plain dumb to describe the result
as "the worst" of Em. Lasker's career.
It obviously was neither the best nor the
worst, and it could easily be argued that
the man's result in 1924 was superior; or,
one could factor the old age in much more
heavily and see the result in 1924 as a bit
of a fluke, just as one could see the rating
listed at chessmetrics.com for Mr. Steinitz
in their second world championship match
as something of a CM anomaly... .
-- help bot
RayLopez99
>
> -- help bot
Shut up. Just shut up bot. You sound like a real idiot. Do you ever
type something that makes sense?
RL
help bot
> Shut up. Just shut up bot.
> You sound like a real idiot. Do you ever
> type something that makes sense?
Imbeciles quite often have trouble comprehending
my comments. Take Sanny, for instance: he is
convinced that Mr. Hitler was *not* responsible for
his own actions-- for fighting a multitude of enemies
at the same time --in spite of my efforts here.
These dullards must be written off as hopeless
cases (or what the Nazis would have described as
the feeble-minded; folks who cannot make heads
or tails of anything involving reason).
Listen, Mr. Lopez-- if you want a piece of me, then
why don't you come to the U.S. Open and face me
over the board? I will be sitting at or near board
one in the later rounds, but you may have to check
the wall chart to locate me earlier on. Better still,
why don't you just win all your games like me and
we will be paired together? That goes for you, too,
Mr. Sloan. Oh, I forgot-- Mr. Sloan will be playing
ludicrous openings like the Grob and Damiano's
so-called defense, so he would very likely be at the
opposite end of the building, on board 150 or so.
By the way, in case the arbiters don't like me
sitting so close to the action (behind the ropes) at
board one, I will be found observing their play from
a respectful distance-- standing, so as to be able
to see over the shoulders of other spectators like
me. (What-- you thought I was going to be playing
on board one? Hahahahahaha! That's funny.)
-- help bot
Offramp
http://www.chessville.com/editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Parrot.htm
viz:
"2. Many chess players know that Alexander Alekhine had two cats,
named Check and Mate. You claim to be the World Champion's parrot.
Care to dish?
**Alekhine had a high squeaky voice, and a good editor would find the
BBC archive URL for an interview with him [interviewer unknown] dating
from, I think 1939. If you can identify the interviewer you win the
star prize – contact BBC immediately. [Editor: Your wish is my
command: YouTube - Alexander Alekhine interview.]
Now, certain parrots are very long in the tooth, and may even have
preceded such as Alekhine, may have taught him everything he knew,
including how not to be oppressed by French waiters. Cats come and
go, I have known dozens. You have to not back off before them, while
simultaneously asserting you have claws too, and a beak – a great big
beak could bring tears to the eyes!
Cats are OK at chess, but lazy; not unlike Sammy Reschevsky! He could
have had it all, but you know, there is inspiration and there is work,
and these are companion factors in any success. Morphy was also quite
interesting in this respect – I knew him, Greg – and he also suffered
from insight. Whereas a bit more homework, regular eating habits, and
other non-equivocal behavioral patterns would have set him up to
dominate the world!
Then there was Fischer – looking over his shoulder, or rather from it,
I observed him closely. I think he is less understood still than are
his desserts. [Mango and ice-cream.]
Yet another American player, brilliant over the board – brilliant
without precedent, yet lazy somehow in preparations. For him to have
continued (I often spoke in his ear) he would need more technical
resource to confront the young tigers like Karpov and Kasparov, but
would he do that? NO!
He was like Capablanca in his attitude to chess – though the professed
to like Morphy most of all – where Capa after losing the world title
to Alekhine, said; “if that’s chess, you can keep it.”"
Taylor Kingston
Alan, don't you know that Phil Innes _is_ "Alekhine's Parrot"? So I
don't think we can consider an interview with the "Parrot" a valid,
authentic source for the remark Phil alleges Capablanca made.
Other comments:
1. Alekhine was known to have a cat "Chess," but I don't recall ever
reading that he had two named "Check" and "Mate." What is Rick
Kennedy's source for this? Contrary to what's implied above, the taped
BBC interview does not mention any cats.
2. Based on the BBC interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrH-tcDTU48
it seems inaccurate to describe Alekhine's voice as "high and
squeaky." A bit higher than the average male voice perhaps, but hardly
squeaky.
BTW, Alan, you left out the funniest thing in the "Parrot"
interview, where Innes concludes "I particularly like writing with
people who understand what I have just written." This is so rich in
ludicrous irony that it has its own tax bracket.
RayLopez99
> Imbeciles quite often have trouble comprehending
> my comments. Take Sanny, for instance: he is
> convinced that Mr. Hitler was *not* responsible for
> his own actions-- for fighting a multitude of enemies
> at the same time --in spite of my efforts here.
> These dullards must be written off as hopeless
> cases (or what the Nazis would have described as
> the feeble-minded; folks who cannot make heads
> or tails of anything involving reason).
You calling Sanny a Nazi? He denies that. As do you. because if you
admit to being Nazis, you'll be deported despite being a US citizen
for the last 50 years. lying on your application.
>
> Listen, Mr. Lopez-- if you want a piece of me, then
> why don't you come to the U.S. Open and face me
> over the board? I will be sitting at or near board
> one in the later rounds, but you may have to check
> the wall chart to locate me earlier on. Better still,
> why don't you just win all your games like me and
> we will be paired together? That goes for you, too,
> Mr. Sloan. Oh, I forgot-- Mr. Sloan will be playing
> ludicrous openings like the Grob and Damiano's
> so-called defense, so he would very likely be at the
> opposite end of the building, on board 150 or so
I am ranked about 1800 Elo, so that would be a mismatch. For you,
"Class C" patzer. And it takes balls to play the Grob (sacrificing
your queen for minor pieces, like Sam did in that game he lost
recently) and the conservative Damiano.
>
> By the way, in case the arbiters don't like me
> sitting so close to the action (behind the ropes) at
> board one, I will be found observing their play from
> a respectful distance-- standing, so as to be able
> to see over the shoulders of other spectators like
> me. (What-- you thought I was going to be playing
> on board one? Hahahahahaha! That's funny.)
You make no sense as usual, Bot. You claim to be Topolov's manager,
giving signals to your favorite players by standing "behind the
ropes"? Something like that. But you're too weak to give signals,
except of your weakness. You are signaling your weakness, weakling.
RL
RayLopez99
wrote:
>
> 2. Based on the BBC interview:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrH-tcDTU48
>
> it seems inaccurate to describe Alekhine's voice as "high and
> squeaky." A bit higher than the average male voice perhaps, but hardly
> squeaky.
>
Alekhine choked on a piece of meat during the Christmas holidays. He
was dying of starvation and had to eat his cat, named "Checkmate",
after the end of WWII when the Nazis, who he sided with for
convenience, lost and there was mass starvation. Alekhine was too
vain to ask his friends for food. Or maybe I'm mashing him with
Schlecter. It's in Google, somewhere.
RL
madams
>
> On Jul 19, 10:13 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Aleckine (sic)
>
> You're sick yourself.
>
> > See Jeff Sonas' site.
>
> I rather play well than be well on
> this garbage site.
>
> > Again, Sonas' site.
>
> You're dense again. Sona's site is for
> dummies like you. It's even very
> nicely packaged (this aspect indeed is
> impressive), so that a guy like you
> will swallow it smoothly.
>
> Wlod
Wlod, I can't really ask "treeny" but if you could kindly post a link to
the controversial "JS site" it would be much appreciated...
Thks mate!..
m.
help bot
wrote:
> BTW, Phil, did you happen to notice the exchange between Wlod
> Holsztynksi and myself elsewhere in this thread? Wlod spoke of Smyslov
> winning two Interzonals, and I politely corrected him, saying they
> were Candidates Tournaments, not Interzonals. Rather than insist he
> was right, or react with hostility, Wlod politely thanked me. On
> another occasion, Wlod corrected me on something, and I courteously
> acknowledged that he was right.
> This is shows how gentleman can conduct discussions without rancor
> and settle differences amicably.
Indeed, gentlemen are those who are in the
habit of conducting discourse politely, /even
when their "opponent" is someone they dislike/.
Obviously, that excludes the likes of TK-- a
nutter who offers up gentlemanly behavior
only when it suits his whims-- and especially
when he wants something in return.
For example, if say, I wanted Mr. Kingston to
post a link to the purported instance where he
"courteously" accepted correction of his error
by Mr. Wlod (as unlikely an event as losing to
GetClub's Baby level), I could emulate the
nutter by being polite-- just so I could get what
I wanted from him. Or if, say, I wanted some
"support" from the likes of Mr. Parr, I might
emulate the nutter by smooching and getting
my nose a lovely yellowish-brown color-- as
we have seen TK do here in rgc, time and
time again.
But that's not being a gentleman; no, being
a gentleman is something else... .
-- help bot
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> Wlod, I can't really ask "treeny" but if you could kindly post a link to
> the controversial "JS site" it would be much appreciated...
Jeff Sona's? I don't have it anymore
but I'll find it. Just not right away.
Regards,
Wlod
Andrew B.
There's http://db.chessmetrics.com/ from 2005 - I don't know if there
are any newer Chessmetrics sites.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> On 21 Aug, 07:53, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>
> > but I'll find it. Just not right away.
>
> are any newer Chessmetrics sites.
Thank you, Andrew,
Wlod
madams
.
> But that's not being a gentleman; no, being
> a gentleman is something else... .
You might say "pinnacle of pretension" I suppose;
...but, "pinnacle of dumbth" doesn't make sense
- "Nadir of dumbth" is much more sensible...
m.
madams
Yes, same here, thks Andrew..
m.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
<sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] Smyslov won two Interzonals in a row,
As Taylor has corrected: Smyslov won two
Candidate Tournaments in a row (it was just
a typo on my part).
> On the second occasion Kotov
> made it interesting by beating Smyslov. This
> despite the widely believed "Soviet conspiracy".
> And Kotov was an aparatchik :-)
Actually, this had happened on the first occasion,
in Zurich, 1953. Before the round Smyslov
was leading 1pt ahead of Reshevsky, who was
in the 2nd place. After Kotov's win, Reshevsky
caught up with Smyslov. All this took place quite
late, in the 21st round, with only 9 rounds to go.
Less dramatic was the round 8 Smyslov loss to
Spassky in Amsterdam, 1956, with ten more rounds
to go. Till then Smyslov, Keres and Geller were leading
with 4.5pt while Spassky, Panno and Pilnik shared the
last place with 2.5pt. Round 8 pushed Smyslov down to
shared 3-4 place.
So, was there a Soviet conspiracy in 1953 & 1956
or not?
--
Wlod
Taylor Kingston
Well, according to David Bronstein, who tied with Keres and
Reshevsky for 2nd-4th, there certainly was attempted interference, at
the very least, at Neuhausen-Zurich 1953. It's detailed in "Treachery
in Zurich" by GM Andrew Soltis:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles171.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles173.pdf
The article describes the meddling by the Soviet administrative
troika of Postnikov, Moshintsev and Bondarevsky, as they tried to rig
results to ensure that Reshevsky did not become the challenger.
Whether this materially affected the outcome of any particular game,
or the tournament as a whole, is hard to prove (though I think it
probably did).
That's less important than the fact that meddling occurred at all,
IMO. Cheating is still cheating, whether it succeeds or not.
ChessFire
a) I see that that Karpov Kasparov match will be viewed by 10,000,000
players worldwide, but it is probably a mistake to say 'online' since
the majority of viewers will watch by tv.
b) I also see the the two players will be involved in many more
competitions together, as a touring pair of duelers. Official sources
merely say this is so, without currently projecting any details on the
extent or location of the forthcoming matches.
>On Jul 23, 11:12 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:32 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > DEIFIED DUUMVIRS
>
> > Greg Kennedy's latest silly claim is that this writer and GM
> > Larry Evans are heroes of Taylor Kingston. Perhaps we are even hero-
> > worshipped by the latter.
>
> Larry, I think you have misunderstood Kennedy. He was saying you,
> Evans and Adorjan were heroes to Innes, not me.
I am sure that Kennedy is speaking the truth as he would like it to
be, but anyone who has witnessed by correspondence with Adorjan, for
example, and their are some here who have, know that we are not always
on the same page - indeed, we are sometimes not even in the same book.
As for Larry Evans, my contacts with him are very brief, though we are
both often copied in by other conversation partners. There are for
sure things I would ask him about, then again these would be likely
book topics or extensive essays length rather than much that could
result from chat.
> Innes: "That is why this stuff is so hot for Kingston, he has his
> heros [sic] who may not be challenged ..."
>
> Kennedy: "Larry Evans... Larry Parr... GM Adorjan..."
And as for Larry Parr, I think we are not as much topically in
agreement on anything, and disposed to consider another point of view
may be said honestly and with intelligence. In that sense we are not
in opposition often, but more contrasting in perspectives. This is
innately not fascist, where only one perspective is held to be
possible, and that an enforced one.
Actual heroes ... [spellings vary, and if you read a little A. Sax you
would see the entry of the word into common English speech from HERIE;
to honour, which as ani ful no, is laid down in Occleve, MS Soc, Antiq
134 f. 259] and if you read any Latin and Greek then heros is the same
in both - but the word directly informing the Saxon is Vir [L] and Wer
[A. Sax], ... but I digress away from A. Norm forms and Latinizations.
Actual heroes might have been Michael Adams, since we played in the
same league and even same county team, but actually I am more
traditional and conservative in that I would if limited to a single
player chose Kasparov as the most rounded player of all time, and the
least disposed to like a draw with either colour.
> Innes was deriding me as someone who supposedly has "heroes who may
> not be challenged." Kennedy rebutted this by giving names of those
> who, in his opinion, Innes has viewed as unchallengeable heroes.
Unchallengeable on what subject that Kennedy could possibly know
about. My level of [dis]agreement with Adorjan is hilarious, while I
do not challenge world leading GMs to their chess knowledge! But I did
diss Kasparov once - there was a group discussion about design of a
net-capable digital clock with 3 delay systems, how it should look, be
operated and so on, and I received a message about someone's ideas on
this and was asked to comment, which means be critical of it, which I
did with a will. Later I learned I had extensively criticized GK.
But in this public matter, why so vague? Why say I do not dispute with
people, or with named people? Certainly I have written with some of
the best players in the world, maybe 25 of them, and in many cases
sustained a correspondence. They seem to like the idea of someone who
will just speak their mind, even if in contradiction to their own - I
suppose their are plenty of brown-nosers around these people which is
wearying for them.
There is another fault in what Kennedy says and Kingston understands
from him, and that is the word 'unchallengeable'. What these writers
intend is that I have not challenged them here in public - which is to
large extent true, since it is usually not necessary to do so. What
often happens is that a writer will assert an issue about a 'Great',
someone famous by acclamation and achievement, which needs challenging
- rather than the player needing to be challenged.
When for example Larry Evans states from his experience at playing
first tier chess in the world, against SU players and the atmosphere
in, say Cuba, then I grant Larry Evans to have first hand sense of
both the level of play and the atmosphere wherein that takes place.
Now, if for example Taylor Kingston contradicts GM Evans about a
Soviet-era event, then I am more likely to accept Evans since he is a
[a] much stronger player than Kingston, and [b] knows something of the
pressures of first tier chess, and [c] at first hand during the time
and place where the event occurred.
Its true that that is not to be critical of Evans, and yet I don't say
that Evans is correct, but that he is, for all those reasons far more
likely to know which way is up than does Taylor Kingston who at first
hand has none of those experiences.
> If I am wrong to interpret Kennedy thusly, he will no doubt correct
> me here. But that is clearly his meaning as I see it.
>
> In any event, this is a complete side track off the main issue,
> which is Innes' fabrication of non-existent quotes. He's introduced at
> least three whoppers here:
>
> (1) Claiming that Capablanca said he was bored by Alekine's play in
> their 1927 match, adding "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or words
> to that effect),
Well - as a matter of logic I predicted that Kingston would declare
information he doesn't have as 'non-existent.
Secondly, whether or not Capablanca ever said that is an open
question, since I said I thought it was written in the book of a Cuban
exile.
What Taylor Kingston cannot do is understand what is before his nose -
then he excites the issue to such degree that no answer makes sense.
I can even consider that even though I've read that phrase somewhere,
it can still be wrong, a falsehood! Whereas to Taylor Kingston it is
presumably true if printed, and false unless I can cite the source. 2
logical errors.
> (2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
> (www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf)supportsthis, and
Enter Vaguer Kingston with his 'this', which is actually a 'that.'
> (3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
> table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
What weasel words! Because it does show that Lasker is in 8th place
which is the last place shown in the table.
> Innes is able to present nothing supporting claim #1. Claim #2 is
Lies! I told Kingston I wouldn't, nor couldn't answer his literally
'f**king thread' since that was not a real inquiry and instead a form
of abuse based on his own illogical nonsense which he and he alone is
hot about.
> demonstrably false, as anyone who reads Pandolifini's column can
can see a straw man
> easily see. And having a copy of Sunnucks' book myself, I can testify
> that claim #3 is also totally false.
It does show Lasker coming 8th!~ You do not contest that do you? And
when I looked it up I simply reported to you that your hero
ROFL
was not exactly as dominant as you said he was, since according to
Sunnucks he came 8th. Now we know he came 7/8.
That was the context, and the rest of Kinston's hissing is about his
own arguments with his own paraphrases combined with some need to mock
other people who at no time intend to deceive him.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
>
> >On Jul 23, 11:12 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > In any event, this is a complete side track off the main issue,
> > which is Innes' fabrication of non-existent quotes. He's introduced at
> > least three whoppers here:
>
> > (1) Claiming that Capablanca said he was bored by Alekine's play in
> > their 1927 match, adding "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or words
> > to that effect),
>
> Well - as a matter of logic I predicted that Kingston would declare
> information he doesn't have as 'non-existent.
It also appears to be information no one else has. In particular,
it's information _you_ don't have, Phil. Which leads one to wonder how
you then presume to say it does exist.
> Secondly, whether or not Capablanca ever said that is an open
> question,
Exactly my point. But you didn't frame it as "an open question." You
claimed to be presenting a fact. You claimed to be quoting Capablanca.
You have no business claiming this, when you don't really know.
> since I said I thought it was written in the book of a Cuban
> exile.
Which belief has been proven false. So, unless and until you present
an authentic source showing that Capablanca did in fact say he was
bored by Alekhine's play in their 1927 match, and something to the
effect of "If that's chess, you can keep it," I will continue to doubt
that Capa ever said any such things.
> > (2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
> > (www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf) supports this, and
>
> Enter Vaguer Kingston with his 'this', which is actually a 'that.'
Eh? The plain fact is that the Pandolfini column does not have
anything to support your Capablanca quote claim, nor anything even
remotely relevant to it. You said it does, but it simply does not.
> > (3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
> > table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
>
> What weasel words! Because it does show that Lasker is in 8th place
> which is the last place shown in the table.
Our Phil suffers a double hallucination. The Sunnucks encyclopedia
(A) has no table at all for Nottingham 1936, and (B) does not
represent 8th place as last, since that tournament had 15 players.
Jeez Phil, you can't even give a correct citation from a book you
actually have!
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 11:12 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >On Jul 23, 11:12 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > In any event, this is a complete side track off the main issue,
> > > which is Innes' fabrication of non-existent quotes. He's introduced at
> > > least three whoppers here:
>
> > > (1) Claiming that Capablanca said he was bored by Alekine's play in
> > > their 1927 match, adding "If that's chess, you can keep it" (or words
> > > to that effect),
>
> > Well - as a matter of logic I predicted that Kingston would declare
> > information he doesn't have as 'non-existent.
>
> It also appears to be information no one else has.
No one in this newsgroup? And therefore it doesn't exist!
> In particular,
> it's information _you_ don't have, Phil.
In two sentences two completely illogical statements. If I 'have' it,
I haven't posted it here, that's all. But you now say I don't have it
as though you were some sort of Swami.
> Which leads one to wonder how
> you then presume to say it does exist.
One might consult what I actually said, that from my memory I think it
was in the Cuban's book. Evidently it is elsewhere.
> > Secondly, whether or not Capablanca ever said that is an open
> > question,
>
> Exactly my point. But you didn't frame it as "an open question."
That's right, I didn't frame it any particular way.
> You
> claimed to be presenting a fact.
But now you are doing the framing. Whether I read somewhere and
whether it is true of false are 2 subjects. It is YOU who insist on
'framing' something I said I remember reading as the thing being
true.
> You claimed to be quoting Capablanca.
Actually you continue to frame the issue. I claimed, as you put it, to
have read that Capablanca said. Again those are 2 issues, not one. It
is your insistence in confuting one with the other that is the cause
of your own contention.
'Claiming' what? 'Claiming' a memory? And what is this no business
comment? What is so hot about the issue for you? After making absurd
illogical leaps, combined with abuse, you now tell me that I have no
business writing here about a memory. <shrug>
I brought up before you did that even if it is written it may not be
true, right? So what is your contention therefore? In the original
comment I qualified it by saying 'I think' which is honest, no? I make
no claim to know if Capablanca said it or not, but that I remember
reading somewhere that someone thought so.
I have made these distinctions all along.
What are you dissatisfied with to such an extent that you subvert this
and other threads and use the f-word in your new title?
What business do you have to write like this?
> > since I said I thought it was written in the book of a Cuban
> > exile.
>
> Which belief has been proven false. So, unless and until you present
> an authentic source showing that Capablanca did in fact say he was
> bored by Alekhine's play in their 1927 match, and something to the
> effect of "If that's chess, you can keep it," I will continue to doubt
> that Capa ever said any such things.
But you will not doubt that he said it more than I did!
Try to understand my last half dozen posts. Because someone wrote it
does not mean that Capablanca actuall said it - nor disprove it
either.
Now, do you understand this distinction between what is written and
what is true? If you do not then there can be no further discussion.
> > > (2) Claiming that Bruce Pandolfini's current Chesscafe column
> > > (www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce121.pdf) supports this, and
>
> > Enter Vaguer Kingston with his 'this', which is actually a 'that.'
>
> Eh? The plain fact is that the Pandolfini column does not have
> anything to support your Capablanca quote claim,
I think I wrote about Pandolfini's column in terms of Capablanca's
character, which aligned with my own view of Capa, but not yours. You
said it would be out of character to utter such and such a phrase,
whereas I thought it totally in character to do so.
But I never even suggested that the CC columnist substantiated 'my
claim' as you put it, and above I point out that your language is
vague because you now insist that i did so, but are shamed to find my
own quote about Pandolfini, since it doesn't exist.
> nor anything even
> remotely relevant to it. You said it does, but it simply does not.
'It'? Read 'it' again. Now you jump some context and cheat with words
since there is a second issue you want to confound with the first. You
cannot do this honestly since by quoting it would prove the lie.
> > > (3) Claiming that Sunnuck's "Encyclopedia of Chess" (1970) has a
> > > table showing that Lasker finished last at Nottingham 1936.
>
> > What weasel words! Because it does show that Lasker is in 8th place
> > which is the last place shown in the table.
>
> Our Phil suffers a double hallucination. The Sunnucks encyclopedia
> (A) has no table at all for Nottingham 1936,
That is no paraphrase of what I wrote. I am saying that it DOES have a
table, and Lasker is last in it, in 8th place. Period.
> and (B) does not
> represent 8th place as last, since that tournament had 15 players.
Actually the table shows Lasker at the bottom of the table in 8th
place. Say you understand this.
> Jeez Phil, you can't even give a correct citation from a book you
> actually have!
And the reason I have to tell you is that you also have the book but
argued with me the same way that Hooper's entry is not in it, even
when I gave you page and verse - in refutation of your claim that
Lasker was so good - coming 7/8th disproved that I think. I found the
reference and gave it to you. You then treated me as if I had
committed a crime intended to deceive everyone, as if indeed Lasker
being 7/8th instead of 8th would bring famine on us all.
You prefer your hero unsullied <shrug> rather than by his actual
performance, right? That was the context wasn't it?
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
>
> On Aug 27, 11:41 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Our Phil suffers a double hallucination. The Sunnucks encyclopedia
> > (A) has no table at all for Nottingham 1936,
>
> That is no paraphrase of what I wrote. I am saying that it DOES have a
> table,
Please tell us on what page of the Sunnucks encyclopedia this
alleged table for Nottingham 1936 is.
> and Lasker is last in it, in 8th place. Period.
Completely false, Phil. Period. There is NO SUCH TABLE in the
Sunnucks encyclopedia.
And if it did have such a table, last place would be 15th place, and
occupied by William Winter.
The Sunnucks book has *_no entry at all for Nottingham 1936_*, let
alone any table for it. Nottingham 1936 is briefly mentioned only in
entries for some of the participants, e.g. Capablanca and Botvinnik,
and in a list under "Tournaments, International — 1851-1949" on page
464. And in that list what little it has about Nottingham 1936 is
mostly wrong, since it shows the co-winners as Flohr and Capablanca
(instead of Botvinnik and Capablanca), and Flohr is said to be
Russian, instead of Czech.
> > and (B) does not
> > represent 8th place as last, since that tournament had 15 players.
>
> Actually the table shows Lasker at the bottom of the table in 8th
> place. Say you understand this.
How can I understand anything about something that does not exist?
Phil, get this through your hallucination-filled head. Here are the
correct scores and standings for Nottingham 1936:
1-2. Botvinnik, Capablanca 10-4
3-5. Fine, Reshevsky, Euwe 9½-4½
6. Alekhine 9-5
7-8. Lasker, Flohr 8½-5½
9. Vidmar 6-8
10-11. Tartakower, Bogolyubov 5½-8½
12. Tylor 4½-9½
13. Alexander 3½-10½
14. Thomas 3-11
15. Winter 2½-11½
Please note carefully: Lasker is _not_ in last place. It is
impossible to finish last with a plus score.
If you don't want to take my word for it, you can confirm this data
in "The Complete Book of Chess Tournament Crosstables vol 1" by Rick
Melton, "The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia" by Nathan Divinsky, "Chess:
The Records" by Ken Whyld, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games
1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven, "Reuben Fine" by Aidan Woodger,
and the October 1936 Chess Review, page 234, just to name some of the
sources I have.
However, unless your copy is quite different from mine, you will not
find this table, nor anything close to it, in the Sunnucks
encyclopedia.
Taylor Kingston
wrote:
Phil, I don't usually go to this much trouble, but just because you
seem so helplessly confused in this matter, I have scanned three
versions of the crosstable for Nottingham 1936, and posted them in one
of my Picasa albums here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ttk5079/Nottingham1936#
All you have to do is click the link, then click on any of the three
crosstables. Or better, click on "slideshow," since that shows
everything largest and most clearly. Either way, you can move from one
crosstable to another simply by using the left- and right-arrow keys
or on-screen buttons.
You will notice that the crosstables are all in fundamental
agreement, showing the same final scores and standings as I did in my
previous post.
Now that I've done my part, I challenge you to do yours: post a scan
of the table you claim is in the Sunnucks book, showing Lasker in last
place. If you can't, the only manly thing to do is admit you've been
lying and/or hallucinating in this matter.
help bot
wrote:
> Now that I've done my part, I challenge you to do yours: post a scan
> of the table you claim is in the Sunnucks book, showing Lasker in last
> place. If you can't, the only manly thing to do is admit you've been
> lying and/or hallucinating in this matter.
Why is one reminded of Peewee Herman, the
equally "manly" equivalent of Mr.Kingston? In
countless other threads, Peewee-- I mean Mr.
Kingston, has exhibited his, ah, "manhood", by
such astounding feats as backpedaling, flip-flop-
ping on various issues, and other Hermanesque
behaviors.
Feeling "challenged" by such a girlish lad is
not unlike attempting to muster a scream at the
sight of Caspar the friendly ghost, or should I
say, Bambi (aka Flower)?
--
What amazes me is the way in which pedants
can go on and on -- and on -- about such things,
all the while apparently oblivious to the reality--
which is that such comments are generally
nothing more than /rationalizations/; excuses
for failures (as if losing to Alexander Alekhine
can rightly be characterized as a failure at all).
Another example of excuse-making would be
the interview in which Mr. Gligoric constructed
a patzer-level false dichotomy: one either plays
chess to win (here, the world championship
title, no less), OR, one plays with creativity.
I must say, it is more than a bit surprising to
see such elementary blunders from those who
once stood among the very top players of the
chess world.
So, in other words, EVEN IF Mr. Capablanca
had made a silimar comment to the one Dr.
IMnes carelessly attributed to him, it would not
make the slightest difference to the fact of his
having been soundly beaten over the board. It
would only signify that JC could not rationally
digest that particular defeat.
Why Dr. IMnes is so eager to swallow whole
such lines (with hooks and sinkers) is another
matter entirely. It seems to go hand-in-hand
with the hero-worship mindset, the brown-
nosing, and so forth. In any case, as the
famous propagandist Larry Parr might put it,
it makes for a good story.
-- help bot