| |
Main
Date: 10 Sep 2008 17:14:15
From: Christian
Subject: #5 versus #6
|
What if the world championship is between the number 5 and the number
6 of the FIDE ranking?
Is there any precedent?
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 20:47:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo stuff, was Custer's Last Stand
|
On Sep 21, 10:53=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > **Sorry, fucked up nerves in left hand in climbing incident, put an ice
> > axe in it.
Note that although this may /sound/ idiotic, many
a fool has fallen off a mountain while climbing, yet
Dr. IMnes is still alive and kicking. The key seems
to be not hitching oneself to another idiot, but to a
skilled climber who lacks the good judgment to
avoid this particular kind of blunder.
> > **He doesn't want to go into that in case he might appear to be a pedan=
tic
> > twit about other people's writings, ungenerous to a fault to those who =
try
> > to disentangle his slippery references, while he himself can slip such
> > lose or vague references into play about his self.
You're wasting your time; I got a super heavy-duty
model, and nothing you write here can break it-- it
says so right on the box it came in-- just above the
lines, "Hippokrisi meter" and "Made in China".
> > **I take Elo to be current OTB ratings, unless qualified by other terms
Like I said-- some idiots will assume themselves
to death, if no one acts in time to protect them
from their own idiocy.
> **No doubting the real Kingston! Utterly no trace of content
See? The needle hits the red zone, but the
rubber peg just holds it there until you get to
the next part of a post. It's simply a matter of
superior design: titanium needle and post, a
super-strength coil spring, the whole device
hermetically sealed inside a thick goo, to
cushion and slow the needle's movements.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 18:56:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo stuff, was Custer's Last Stand
|
On Sep 20, 9:17=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Phil, you need professional help. Badly. Now. Yesterday, even.
Not really. Take the typing problem, for instance;
all Dr. IMnes needed was someone to help him
work through it-- a person who could think, who
could reason a way to cope with the handicap.
That's where I come in. While I won't bore rgc
readers with my astounding IQ scores, let's just
say that when it comes to difficult problems of
logic and reason like this one, I'm the Rocky
Balboa of condominiums. It's very simple,
really-- to a man of my intellectual powers, that
is. Just type with the other hand-- the right
hand, and get a spell checker for good measure.
Now, what other problems are you having, my
boy? Anything of note? Don't worry, we are
here to help-- and always for free.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 18:41:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 20, 7:18=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Anyone here care to re-fight the civil war?
Um, can I have BOTH General Lee AND the vast
resources of the North's factories? If not, forget it;
I refuse to get beaten like a carrot (or to take the side
of those who would deny me my God-given right of
secession). BTW, I may have worked out a way
to attack over land with my titanium-hulled mini-sub,
armed of course with heat-seeking missiles, etc.
The trick is to load the sub onto a rail car, but the
engine (a modified 455 Cadillac V8) overheats
because of the much lower density of air vs. water.
-- General bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 18:17:15
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Elo stuff, was Custer's Last Stand
|
On Sep 20, 7:41=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > **Seems to me Elo /is/ saying USCF & FIDE are more interested in politi=
cs
> > than his mathematics, seem to > be that that is exactly what he is sayi=
ng,
> > first USCF in the 60's then Fide in the 70's.
>
> =A0 If you had written that first, Phil, then we would have had no
> disagreement. But instead you wrote "ELO [sic] having not interested
> USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
> the 1960's." Besides being very clumsy, it gives the distinct
> impression that USCF and FIDE had no interest in Elo's work at all,
> when in fact they both had very great interest.
>
> **So sorry your highness, I merely assumed that BY ALSO referring to the
> Chessbase article, I need not repeat it entire. Secondly, I {ROFL] still
> don;t have thge slightest idea why you issue your 'cooments' such as they
> 'both had very great interest'. Since the CONTEXT of Elo is that their
> interest was in playing politics with yet another thing, instead of any
> impartial objective implementation of his rating scheme.
>
> > =A0What is Kingston arging [sic] exactly from his own selection of new =
found
> > knowlege [sic]?
>
> =A0 That Innes can't write. Nor spell, for that matter.
>
> **Sorry, fucked up nerves in left hand in climbing incident, put an ice a=
xe
> in it. Brought tears to eyes at time, but long term left hand nervous
> response a bit wonky to brain's instructions.
>
> **But is that all you are arguing? Seems like you argue the shit out of
> things to which you can neither present any other cogent point of view, o=
r
> you invent something to argue against - declaring other people insane, dr=
ug
> users, and so on.
>
> > Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to say:
>
> > "Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. Rertro-ratings [sic] projected on
> > these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are estimates or
> > projections, not Elo's measurements."
>
> > This shows that Phil is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The
> > Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present," in which Elo himself most
> > definitely did do retro-ratings, of Steinitz and many other players of
> > the past.
>
> > **Since Kingston has himself raised the subject of comprehension, becau=
se
> > he says that both
> > measurements and retro-projections appear in one book, I am completely
> > ignorant. But ignorant of what?
>
> =A0 I already said what you are ignorant of, Phil: the contents of Elo's
> book.
>
> **Vaguer! Are you saying YOU can't tell the difference of his system of
> rating from retro-ratings? While Elo attempted retro-ratings, are they th=
e
> same as his other offerings? Aren't they a bit risible? A lot risible? Wh=
ile
> you [rightly] criticise my ELO instead of Elo, so at least you can tell t=
he
> difference, I assert that Elo ratings are actual measurements, and as suc=
h
> that 'Elo' has naught to do with Steinitz. You can chose to be right in o=
nly
> one version. But please see your own standard of error at bottom...
>
> =A0And as if to help me illustrate this point, you, in your usual
> way, ask a question I have just answered, demonstrating yet again how
> you cannot even understand what you have just read.
>
> > **Anyone here care to re-fight the civil war?
>
> =A0 Actually there's a Civil War encampment today and tomorrow in
> Shelburne.
>
> **Actually, Taylor Kingston [as usual] cut material from a post without
> indicating it - espeically to confound any context he writes under. It is
> HIGHLY significant that he cut his own reference to his own 2300 ***Elo**=
*
> rating. =A0 :))
>
> **He doesn't want to go into that in case he might appear to be a pedanti=
c
> twit about other people's writings, ungenerous to a fault to those who tr=
y
> to disentangle his slippery references, while he himself can slip such lo=
se
> or vague references into play about his self.
>
> ** This is what our Kingston cut:-
>
> =A0 =A0 Anyone here hearing the term Elo applied to a player ever think o=
f
> backward projections or estimates? Anyone here but 2300 rated Elo [!]
> Kingston? Kingston himself likes to fudge the term since he used that giv=
e
> away 'Elo' to describe his own rating, which was 1800 highest, and projec=
ted
> that into a 2300-rated postal rating, and he is so scrupulous about detai=
ls
> that he added 'Elo' to his 2300. =A0 =A0;)
>
> **I take Elo to be current OTB ratings, unless qualified by other terms, =
and
> not projections backwards in time, or into correspondence chess. any
> 'transalation'.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, you need professional help. Badly. Now. Yesterday, even.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 10:53:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Elo stuff, was Custer's Last Stand
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:50cac3a1-ed8b-4edd-9a1e-a6e1620e252b@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 20, 7:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > **Seems to me Elo /is/ saying USCF & FIDE are more interested in
> > politics
> > than his mathematics, seem to > be that that is exactly what he is
> > saying,
> > first USCF in the 60's then Fide in the 70's.
>
> If you had written that first, Phil, then we would have had no
> disagreement. But instead you wrote "ELO [sic] having not interested
> USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
> the 1960's." Besides being very clumsy, it gives the distinct
> impression that USCF and FIDE had no interest in Elo's work at all,
> when in fact they both had very great interest.
>
> **So sorry your highness, I merely assumed that BY ALSO referring to the
> Chessbase article, I need not repeat it entire. Secondly, I {ROFL] still
> don;t have thge slightest idea why you issue your 'cooments' such as they
> 'both had very great interest'. Since the CONTEXT of Elo is that their
> interest was in playing politics with yet another thing, instead of any
> impartial objective implementation of his rating scheme.
>
> > What is Kingston arging [sic] exactly from his own selection of new
> > found
> > knowlege [sic]?
>
> That Innes can't write. Nor spell, for that matter.
>
> **Sorry, fucked up nerves in left hand in climbing incident, put an ice
> axe
> in it. Brought tears to eyes at time, but long term left hand nervous
> response a bit wonky to brain's instructions.
>
> **But is that all you are arguing? Seems like you argue the shit out of
> things to which you can neither present any other cogent point of view, or
> you invent something to argue against - declaring other people insane,
> drug
> users, and so on.
>
> > Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to say:
>
> > "Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. Rertro-ratings [sic] projected on
> > these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are estimates or
> > projections, not Elo's measurements."
>
> > This shows that Phil is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The
> > Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present," in which Elo himself most
> > definitely did do retro-ratings, of Steinitz and many other players of
> > the past.
>
> > **Since Kingston has himself raised the subject of comprehension,
> > because
> > he says that both
> > measurements and retro-projections appear in one book, I am completely
> > ignorant. But ignorant of what?
>
> I already said what you are ignorant of, Phil: the contents of Elo's
> book.
>
> **Vaguer! Are you saying YOU can't tell the difference of his system of
> rating from retro-ratings? While Elo attempted retro-ratings, are they the
> same as his other offerings? Aren't they a bit risible? A lot risible?
> While
> you [rightly] criticise my ELO instead of Elo, so at least you can tell
> the
> difference, I assert that Elo ratings are actual measurements, and as such
> that 'Elo' has naught to do with Steinitz. You can chose to be right in
> only
> one version. But please see your own standard of error at bottom...
>
> And as if to help me illustrate this point, you, in your usual
> way, ask a question I have just answered, demonstrating yet again how
> you cannot even understand what you have just read.
>
> > **Anyone here care to re-fight the civil war?
>
> Actually there's a Civil War encampment today and tomorrow in
> Shelburne.
>
> **Actually, Taylor Kingston [as usual] cut material from a post without
> indicating it - espeically to confound any context he writes under. It is
> HIGHLY significant that he cut his own reference to his own 2300 ***Elo***
> rating. :))
>
> **He doesn't want to go into that in case he might appear to be a pedantic
> twit about other people's writings, ungenerous to a fault to those who try
> to disentangle his slippery references, while he himself can slip such
> lose
> or vague references into play about his self.
>
> ** This is what our Kingston cut:-
>
> Anyone here hearing the term Elo applied to a player ever think of
> backward projections or estimates? Anyone here but 2300 rated Elo [!]
> Kingston? Kingston himself likes to fudge the term since he used that give
> away 'Elo' to describe his own rating, which was 1800 highest, and
> projected
> that into a 2300-rated postal rating, and he is so scrupulous about
> details
> that he added 'Elo' to his 2300. ;)
>
> **I take Elo to be current OTB ratings, unless qualified by other terms,
> and
> not projections backwards in time, or into correspondence chess. any
> 'transalation'.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, you need professional help. Badly. Now. Yesterday, even.
**No doubting the real Kingston! Utterly no trace of content since non-comic
book understandings are 'difficult', the normal gratuitous and defamatory
'advice', as well the motive exposed - here we Kingston's Elo ratings for
Steinitz, and also for his own correspondence chess - [both, as he likes to
say, 'translation' - but translations from what??] both offered without a
blush by the same person as absolute certainties of correctness. The only
uncertainty for Taylor Kingston is what Elo actually wrote about how well
deployed were his mathematical ideas for their intended purpose.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 06:39:05
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 20, 7:18=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:8d6e992=
[email protected]...
>
> On Sep 19, 9:12 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> =A0 Apparently our Phil is referring to this article on the Chessbase
> site, dated 25 August 2008:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3D4863
>
> =A0 If so, he has clearly not paraphrased it correctly. The passage to
> which he refers could only be this:
>
> =A0 "Politics, in general, was one topic we both gladly avoided but,
> inevitably, chess politics entered our correspondence. At one time I
> complained to Professor Elo about the poor marketing support I was
> getting for his book from some English-speaking chess federations. He
> did not hide his disappointment:
>
> =A0 "'I have always been rather na=EFve politically in the mistaken belie=
f
> that meritorious work or service will receive the proper recognition
> and acceptance. And I always thought that my work would speak for
> itself and become apolitical. But this was not to be, either in the
> USCF in the 1960s or in FIDE in the 1970s. It seems to be part of
> human nature to turn every advance, whether in science or religion,
> into a political issue.'"
>
> =A0 *** (end excerpt) ***
>
> =A0 By no means can Innes' paraphrase =97 "ELO [sic] having not intereste=
d
> USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
> the 1960's." =97 be considered a proper summary of the above.
>
> **Inasmuch as any14 word summary is likely an improper summary of 150. Bu=
t at least Kingston is now writting about what he criticises.
>
> =A0Phil often
> misunderstands what he reads, or misreports what he has read, and this
> is yet another example of this lamentable tendency.
>
> **Seems to me Elo /is/ saying USCF & FIDE are more interested in politics=
than his mathematics, seem to > be that that is exactly what he is saying,=
first USCF in the 60's then Fide in the 70's.
If you had written that first, Phil, then we would have had no
disagreement. But instead you wrote "ELO [sic] having not interested
USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
the 1960's." Besides being very clumsy, it gives the distinct
impression that USCF and FIDE had no interest in Elo's work at all,
when in fact they both had very great interest.
> What is Kingston arging [sic] exactly from his own selection of new foun=
d knowlege [sic]?
That Innes can't write. Nor spell, for that matter.
> =A0 Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to say:
>
> =A0 =A0"Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. Rertro-ratings [sic] projected o=
n
> these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are estimates or
> projections, not Elo's measurements."
>
> =A0 This shows that Phil is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The
> Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present," in which Elo himself most
> definitely did do retro-ratings, of Steinitz and many other players of
> the past.
>
> **Since Kingston has himself raised the subject of comprehension, because=
he says that both
> measurements and retro-projections appear in one book, I am completely ig=
norant. But ignorant of what?
I already said what you are ignorant of, Phil: the contents of Elo's
book. And as if to help me illustrate this point, you, in your usual
way, ask a question I have just answered, demonstrating yet again how
you cannot even understand what you have just read.
> **Anyone here care to re-fight the civil war?
Actually there's a Civil War encampment today and tomorrow in
Shelburne.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 19:41:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Elo stuff, was Custer's Last Stand
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> **Seems to me Elo /is/ saying USCF & FIDE are more interested in politics
> than his mathematics, seem to > be that that is exactly what he is saying,
> first USCF in the 60's then Fide in the 70's.
If you had written that first, Phil, then we would have had no
disagreement. But instead you wrote "ELO [sic] having not interested
USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
the 1960's." Besides being very clumsy, it gives the distinct
impression that USCF and FIDE had no interest in Elo's work at all,
when in fact they both had very great interest.
**So sorry your highness, I merely assumed that BY ALSO referring to the
Chessbase article, I need not repeat it entire. Secondly, I {ROFL] still
don;t have thge slightest idea why you issue your 'cooments' such as they
'both had very great interest'. Since the CONTEXT of Elo is that their
interest was in playing politics with yet another thing, instead of any
impartial objective implementation of his rating scheme.
> What is Kingston arging [sic] exactly from his own selection of new found
> knowlege [sic]?
That Innes can't write. Nor spell, for that matter.
**Sorry, fucked up nerves in left hand in climbing incident, put an ice axe
in it. Brought tears to eyes at time, but long term left hand nervous
response a bit wonky to brain's instructions.
**But is that all you are arguing? Seems like you argue the shit out of
things to which you can neither present any other cogent point of view, or
you invent something to argue against - declaring other people insane, drug
users, and so on.
> Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to say:
>
> "Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. Rertro-ratings [sic] projected on
> these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are estimates or
> projections, not Elo's measurements."
>
> This shows that Phil is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The
> Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present," in which Elo himself most
> definitely did do retro-ratings, of Steinitz and many other players of
> the past.
>
> **Since Kingston has himself raised the subject of comprehension, because
> he says that both
> measurements and retro-projections appear in one book, I am completely
> ignorant. But ignorant of what?
I already said what you are ignorant of, Phil: the contents of Elo's
book.
**Vaguer! Are you saying YOU can't tell the difference of his system of
rating from retro-ratings? While Elo attempted retro-ratings, are they the
same as his other offerings? Aren't they a bit risible? A lot risible? While
you [rightly] criticise my ELO instead of Elo, so at least you can tell the
difference, I assert that Elo ratings are actual measurements, and as such
that 'Elo' has naught to do with Steinitz. You can chose to be right in only
one version. But please see your own standard of error at bottom...
And as if to help me illustrate this point, you, in your usual
way, ask a question I have just answered, demonstrating yet again how
you cannot even understand what you have just read.
> **Anyone here care to re-fight the civil war?
Actually there's a Civil War encampment today and tomorrow in
Shelburne.
**Actually, Taylor Kingston [as usual] cut material from a post without
indicating it - espeically to confound any context he writes under. It is
HIGHLY significant that he cut his own reference to his own 2300 ***Elo***
rating. :))
**He doesn't want to go into that in case he might appear to be a pedantic
twit about other people's writings, ungenerous to a fault to those who try
to disentangle his slippery references, while he himself can slip such lose
or vague references into play about his self.
** This is what our Kingston cut:-
Anyone here hearing the term Elo applied to a player ever think of
backward projections or estimates? Anyone here but 2300 rated Elo [!]
Kingston? Kingston himself likes to fudge the term since he used that give
away 'Elo' to describe his own rating, which was 1800 highest, and projected
that into a 2300-rated postal rating, and he is so scrupulous about details
that he added 'Elo' to his 2300. ;)
**I take Elo to be current OTB ratings, unless qualified by other terms, and
not projections backwards in time, or into correspondence chess. any
'transalation'.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 12:55:57
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 19, 9:12=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:55d9137d-e251-441d-852d-9e5c5f0c06f0@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > **You quoted him, early, I quoted him late, /after/ his experience in
> > seeing
> > his Idea deployed by USCF and FIDE.
>
> =A0 So you acknowledge that USCF and FIDE "deployed his idea," and yet
> you still claim he had "not interested USCF and Fide"? Rather a
> contradiction in terms, eh, Phil? That of course is nothing new for
> you.
>
> **A not-so subtle difference between his idea and adoption of his idea, n=
ot
> as he himself wanted it deployed. But since you have now taken yet anothe=
r
> issue with what people themselves say - shall we expect next that you wil=
l
> not be interested in the guy's own opinion - the same one I indicated is
> repeated at Chessbase. In frightfully basic language, his idea was screwe=
d
> up by 'politicians' at USCF and FIDE he says, and while it still used his
> name, not to his own satisfaction. Once again Kingston takes issue with
> things thrice repeated which he doesn't attend to - therefore Kingston
> includes selected paraphrases necessary for him to diss other people. Bel=
ow
> Our Kingston wants a 'link' to the chessbase article which he now says I
> only 'allege' exists. Or course he hasn't looked himself, so openly
> speculates.
>
> **But what will happen if Kingston finds his way there, or to Chessville
> where the article was also reported? He has already stated his point of v=
iew
> 'from a book' by Elo himself.
>
> **Will he be able /to understand/ that Elo himself says the politicos of
> chess screwed up his idea. This is going to be a big effort for Kingston =
-
> first to get there and find it [30 seconds] then to puzzle over the
> difference is Elo's idea and what people did unto it!
>
> **Good luck to him, I say. And maybe we'll here more after he finds 30
> seconds to do the research, and 30 days to really think hard about what E=
lo
> said.
>
> **As for the Kingston files, proper, there is enough to go til Christmas =
-
> it is almost all along these lines, and for a change, mentions different
> subjects and people who spoke them - all beginning with Laurie and Evans,
> who he agreed with at first, but didn't understand, then proceeded to
> dis-believe while still not understanding enough to have worked anything =
out
> himself.
>
> **This spat is just the public face of the same very partial 'understandi=
ng'
> also conducted in private =A0;(
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
>
>
> > Did you still not read his own words at
> > Chesscafe? Shit! That's three times already!~ But maybe you don't /want=
/
> > to
> > read that in case it introduces a doubt into the certainties of your ti=
ny
> > mind?
>
> > Phil, I seriously think you have some sort of reading and/or
> > cognition/comprehension disability, bordering on (or perhaps well
> > into) dementia. Seek professional help immediately.
>
> > You are merely an insubstantial commentator, Sir. A light-weight in all
> > things.Your facetious 'understanding' borrowed from others and not ever=
of
> > your own wit, and your constant defamations of all you do not understan=
d,
> > nor wish to - a very great amount by any reconging - preceed you like a
> > wave
> > of undigested chaff.
>
> > While I am certain you would only issue such a comment at a distance,
> > lacking the balls for any man to man comment, this would be interpreted=
by
> > such hysterics here as an intended violence. Though you did this with
> > Averbakh and refuseniks, a cowardly glossing over of certain suffering.
>
> > Whereas I merely say you lack any decency, and you practiced your
> > 'Californian' arts this way against many people in private, and I am
> > determining to produce all your material here in public, and if you get
> > sued, so be it! I think it is entirely likely it will happen!
>
> > Since it is very likely, you and your confederates, with your gross
> > impertenances know no restraint since you think my reticence a weakness=
.
>
> > It ain't.
>
> > In this issue, yet another issue in your record, you are content to iss=
ue
> > defamations rather than inquiries about what goes on.
>
> > You are a petit-faciste, no? You insist your interpretation allows you =
to
> > denigrate other people so you may be superior to them - all those you r=
ag
> > against achieving substantially more chessic worth than you ever dreame=
d
> > on.
>
> > So - time is short now - but since you insist Kingston, then I shall no=
w
> > do
> > as I please, since to honor the privacy of such a dishonorable pretende=
r,
> > is
> > beyond the balance of any well-being normally evidenced by silence or
> > respect for privacy.
>
> > Should you not understand the above, I am going to OUT you, Kingston, i=
n
> > my
> > own time ~ all of it.
>
> > And may you enjoy the ride. I will not, but I will do it. And I will do
> > it,
> > since your intent is to damage and defame.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 Um, Phil -- would you care to provide us an actual *_link_* to this
> alleged Chessbase -- Or is it ChessCafe? You've claimed both now --
> article that supposedly proves USCF and FIDE were 'not interested' in
> Elo's work in the 1960s? It might give the rest of us a chance to
> understand what you're actually talking about, since clearly you
> don't.
Apparently our Phil is referring to this article on the Chessbase
site, dated 25 August 2008:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3D4863
If so, he has clearly not paraphrased it correctly. The passage to
which he refers could only be this:
"Politics, in general, was one topic we both gladly avoided but,
inevitably, chess politics entered our correspondence. At one time I
complained to Professor Elo about the poor marketing support I was
getting for his book from some English-speaking chess federations. He
did not hide his disappointment:
"'I have always been rather na=EFve politically in the mistaken belief
that meritorious work or service will receive the proper recognition
and acceptance. And I always thought that my work would speak for
itself and become apolitical. But this was not to be, either in the
USCF in the 1960s or in FIDE in the 1970s. It seems to be part of
human nature to turn every advance, whether in science or religion,
into a political issue.'"
*** (end excerpt) ***
By no means can Innes' paraphrase =97 "ELO [sic] having not interested
USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
the 1960's." =97 be considered a proper summary of the above. Phil often
misunderstands what he reads, or misreports what he has read, and this
is yet another example of this lamentable tendency.
Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to say:
"Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. Rertro-ratings [sic] projected on
these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are estimates or
projections, not Elo's measurements."
This shows that Phil is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The
Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present," in which Elo himself most
definitely did do retro-ratings, of Steinitz and many other players of
the past.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2008 07:18:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C91AF1.04BE2320
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message =
news:8d6e9924-5db6-437b-85a0-83e325c043a1@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...=
On Sep 19, 9:12 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Apparently our Phil is referring to this article on the Chessbase
site, dated 25 August 2008:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3D4863
If so, he has clearly not paraphrased it correctly. The passage to
which he refers could only be this:
"Politics, in general, was one topic we both gladly avoided but,
inevitably, chess politics entered our correspondence. At one time I
complained to Professor Elo about the poor marketing support I was
getting for his book from some English-speaking chess federations. He
did not hide his disappointment:
"'I have always been rather na=EFve politically in the mistaken belief
that meritorious work or service will receive the proper recognition
and acceptance. And I always thought that my work would speak for
itself and become apolitical. But this was not to be, either in the
USCF in the 1960s or in FIDE in the 1970s. It seems to be part of
human nature to turn every advance, whether in science or religion,
into a political issue.'"
*** (end excerpt) ***
By no means can Innes' paraphrase =97 "ELO [sic] having not interested
USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase recently] even in
the 1960's." =97 be considered a proper summary of the above.
**Inasmuch as any14 word summary is likely an improper summary of 150. =
But at least Kingston is now writting about what he criticises.
Phil often
misunderstands what he reads, or misreports what he has read, and this
is yet another example of this lamentable tendency.
**Seems to me Elo /is/ saying USCF & FIDE are more interested in =
politics than his mathematics, seem to be that that is exactly what he =
is saying, first USCF in the 60's then Fide in the 70's. What is =
Kingston arging exactly from his own selection of new found knowlege?=20
Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to say:
"Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. Rertro-ratings [sic] projected on
these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are estimates or
projections, not Elo's measurements."
This shows that Phil is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The
Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present," in which Elo himself most
definitely did do retro-ratings, of Steinitz and many other players of
the past.
**Since Kingston has himself raised the subject of comprehension, =
because he says that both measurements and retro-projections appear in =
one book, I am completely ignorant. But ignorant of what? The difference =
between actual measurments and backward projections?
**Anyone here care to re-fight the civil war? Anyone here hearing the =
term Elo applied to a player ever think of backward projections or =
estimates? Anyone here but 2300 rated Elo [!] Kingston? Kingston himself =
likes to fudge the term since he used that give away 'Elo' to describe =
his own rating, which was 1800 highest, and projected that into a =
2300-rated postal rating, and he is so scrupulous about details that he =
added 'Elo' to his 2300. ;)
**I take Elo to be current OTB ratings, unless qualified by other terms, =
and not projections backwards in time, or into correspondence chess. any =
'transalation'.
Phil Innes
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C91AF1.04BE2320
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY >
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Taylor Kingston" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2 >> wrote in=20
message </FONT ><A=20
href=3D"news:[email protected]=
s.com" ><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >news:[email protected]=
ps.com</FONT ></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2 >...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On Sep 19, 9:12 am, "Chess One" =
<</FONT ><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote:<BR >> "Taylor Kingston" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2 >> wrote in=20
message<BR ><BR> Apparently our Phil is referring to this article =
on the=20
Chessbase<BR >site, dated 25 August 2008:<BR><BR> =
</FONT ><A =
href=3D"http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3D4863" ><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2 >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3D4863</FONT></A>=
<BR ><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2 > If so, he has clearly not paraphrased it =
correctly. The=20
passage to<BR >which he refers could only be this:<BR><BR> =
"Politics, in=20
general, was one topic we both gladly avoided but,<BR >inevitably, chess =
politics=20
entered our correspondence. At one time I<BR >complained to Professor Elo =
about=20
the poor marketing support I was<BR >getting for his book from some=20
English-speaking chess federations. He<BR >did not hide his=20
disappointment:<BR ><BR> "'I have always been rather na=EFve =
politically in=20
the mistaken belief<BR >that meritorious work or service will receive the =
proper=20
recognition<BR >and acceptance. And I always thought that my work would =
speak=20
for<BR >itself and become apolitical. But this was not to be, either in=20
the<BR >USCF in the 1960s or in FIDE in the 1970s. It seems to be part=20
of<BR >human nature to turn every advance, whether in science or=20
religion,<BR >into a political issue.'"<BR><BR> *** (end excerpt)=20
***<BR ><BR> By no means can Innes' paraphrase =97 "ELO [sic] =
having not=20
interested<BR >USCF and Fide [sic] in his material [see chessbase =
recently] even=20
in<BR >the 1960's." =97 be considered a proper summary of the =
above.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>**Inasmuch as any14 word summary is =
likely an=20
improper summary of 150. But at least Kingston is now writting =
about what=20
he criticises.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Phil often<BR>misunderstands what =
he reads,=20
or misreports what he has read, and this<BR >is yet another example of =
this=20
lamentable tendency.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>**Seems to me Elo /is/ saying USCF =
& FIDE are=20
more interested in politics than his mathematics, seem to be that that =
is=20
exactly what he is saying, first USCF in the 60's then Fide in the 70's. =
What is=20
Kingston arging exactly from his own selection of new found =
knowlege?=20
<BR ><BR> Furthermore, Innes was totally incorrect to=20
say:<BR ><BR> "Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all. =
Rertro-ratings [sic]=20
projected on<BR >these players have nothing to do with Elo - they are =
estimates=20
or<BR >projections, not Elo's measurements."<BR><BR> This shows =
that Phil=20
is completely ignorant of Elo's book "The<BR >Rating of Chessplayers Past =
and=20
Present," in which Elo himself most<BR >definitely did do retro-ratings, =
of=20
Steinitz and many other players of<BR >the past.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>**Since Kingston has himself raised the =
subject of=20
comprehension, because he says that both measurements and =
retro-projections=20
appear in one book, I am completely ignorant. But ignorant of what? The=20
difference between actual measurments and backward =
projections?</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>**Anyone here care to re-fight the =
civil war?=20
Anyone here hearing the term Elo applied to a player ever think of =
backward=20
projections or estimates? Anyone here but 2300 rated Elo [!] Kingston? =
Kingston=20
himself likes to fudge the term since he used that give away 'Elo' to =
describe=20
his own rating, which was 1800 highest, and projected that into a =
2300-rated=20
postal rating, and he is so scrupulous about details that he added 'Elo' =
to his=20
2300. ;)</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>**I take Elo to be current OTB ratings, =
unless=20
qualified by other terms, and not projections backwards in time, or into =
correspondence chess. any 'transalation'.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Phil Innes</FONT><FONT></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2 ></FONT></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C91AF1.04BE2320--
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 18:32:04
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 18, 4:58=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c0a66093-0608-400f-9506-0aba02b4b0a2@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 8:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:6c410abe-7fb0-401b-a2c7-a3e1957bc042@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> > > Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
> > > Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #=
1
> > > until 1891.
>
> > > ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbas=
e
> > > recently] even in the 1960's.
>
> > Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe. I
> > quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
> > Present" (Arco,1978), page 11:
>
> > "In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
> > Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
> > rating system and to revise and improve its technical and
> > administrative features. It fell upon the writer, as chairman, to
> > examine the basic theory and rationale of the rating systems of the
> > chess world ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF
> > for rating its entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by
> > the World Chess Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players all
> > over the world ..."
>
> > So much for USCF and FIDE being "not interested ... even in the
> > 1960s."
>
> > **ROFL - Our Taylor quotes chess politicians! He thinks he is arguing w=
ith
> > me again, but actually now directly with what Elo himself said!
>
> =A0 Your comments are often bizarre, Phil,
>
> **that is some state of your own apprehension, but...
>
> =A0but this one is especially
> so. As I made very clear, I quoted Dr. Elo himself.
>
> **You quoted him, early, I quoted him late, /after/ his experience in see=
ing
> his Idea deployed by USCF and FIDE.
So you acknowledge that USCF and FIDE "deployed his idea," and yet
you still claim he had "not interested USCF and Fide"? Rather a
contradiction in terms, eh, Phil? That of course is nothing new for
you.
Did you still not read his own words at
> Chesscafe? Shit! That's three times already!~ But maybe you don't /want/ =
to
> read that in case it introduces a doubt into the certainties of your tiny
> mind?
>
> =A0 Phil, I seriously think you have some sort of reading and/or
> cognition/comprehension disability, bordering on (or perhaps well
> into) dementia. Seek professional help immediately.
>
> You are merely an insubstantial commentator, Sir. A light-weight in all
> things.Your facetious 'understanding' borrowed from others and not ever o=
f
> your own wit, and your constant defamations of all you do not understand,
> nor wish to - a very great amount by any reconging - preceed you like a w=
ave
> of undigested chaff.
>
> While I am certain you would only issue such a comment at a distance,
> lacking the balls for any man to man comment, this would be interpreted b=
y
> such hysterics here as an intended violence. Though you did this with
> Averbakh and refuseniks, a cowardly glossing over of certain suffering.
>
> Whereas I merely say you lack any decency, and you practiced your
> 'Californian' arts this way against many people in private, and I am
> determining to produce all your material here in public, and if you get
> sued, so be it! I think it is entirely likely it will happen!
>
> Since it is very likely, you and your confederates, with your gross
> impertenances know no restraint since you think my reticence a weakness.
>
> It ain't.
>
> In this issue, yet another issue in your record, you are content to issue
> defamations rather than inquiries about what goes on.
>
> You are a petit-faciste, no? You insist your interpretation allows you to
> denigrate other people so you may be superior to them - all those you rag
> against achieving substantially more chessic worth than you ever dreamed =
on.
>
> So - time is short now - but since you insist Kingston, then I shall now =
do
> as I please, since to honor the privacy of such a dishonorable pretender,=
is
> beyond the balance of any well-being normally evidenced by silence or
> respect for privacy.
>
> Should you not understand the above, I am going to OUT you, Kingston, in =
my
> own time ~ all of it.
>
> And may you enjoy the ride. I will not, but I will do it. And I will do i=
t,
> since your intent is to damage and defame.
>
> Phil Innes
Um, Phil -- would you care to provide us an actual *_link_* to this
alleged Chessbase -- Or is it ChessCafe? You've claimed both now --
article that supposedly proves USCF and FIDE were 'not interested' in
Elo's work in the 1960s? It might give the rest of us a chance to
understand what you're actually talking about, since clearly you
don't.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 09:12:58
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:55d9137d-e251-441d-852d-9e5c5f0c06f0@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> **You quoted him, early, I quoted him late, /after/ his experience in
> seeing
> his Idea deployed by USCF and FIDE.
So you acknowledge that USCF and FIDE "deployed his idea," and yet
you still claim he had "not interested USCF and Fide"? Rather a
contradiction in terms, eh, Phil? That of course is nothing new for
you.
**A not-so subtle difference between his idea and adoption of his idea, not
as he himself wanted it deployed. But since you have now taken yet another
issue with what people themselves say - shall we expect next that you will
not be interested in the guy's own opinion - the same one I indicated is
repeated at Chessbase. In frightfully basic language, his idea was screwed
up by 'politicians' at USCF and FIDE he says, and while it still used his
name, not to his own satisfaction. Once again Kingston takes issue with
things thrice repeated which he doesn't attend to - therefore Kingston
includes selected paraphrases necessary for him to diss other people. Below
Our Kingston wants a 'link' to the chessbase article which he now says I
only 'allege' exists. Or course he hasn't looked himself, so openly
speculates.
**But what will happen if Kingston finds his way there, or to Chessville
where the article was also reported? He has already stated his point of view
'from a book' by Elo himself.
**Will he be able /to understand/ that Elo himself says the politicos of
chess screwed up his idea. This is going to be a big effort for Kingston -
first to get there and find it [30 seconds] then to puzzle over the
difference is Elo's idea and what people did unto it!
**Good luck to him, I say. And maybe we'll here more after he finds 30
seconds to do the research, and 30 days to really think hard about what Elo
said.
**As for the Kingston files, proper, there is enough to go til Christmas -
it is almost all along these lines, and for a change, mentions different
subjects and people who spoke them - all beginning with Laurie and Evans,
who he agreed with at first, but didn't understand, then proceeded to
dis-believe while still not understanding enough to have worked anything out
himself.
**This spat is just the public face of the same very partial 'understanding'
also conducted in private ;(
Phil Innes
> Did you still not read his own words at
> Chesscafe? Shit! That's three times already!~ But maybe you don't /want/
> to
> read that in case it introduces a doubt into the certainties of your tiny
> mind?
>
> Phil, I seriously think you have some sort of reading and/or
> cognition/comprehension disability, bordering on (or perhaps well
> into) dementia. Seek professional help immediately.
>
> You are merely an insubstantial commentator, Sir. A light-weight in all
> things.Your facetious 'understanding' borrowed from others and not ever of
> your own wit, and your constant defamations of all you do not understand,
> nor wish to - a very great amount by any reconging - preceed you like a
> wave
> of undigested chaff.
>
> While I am certain you would only issue such a comment at a distance,
> lacking the balls for any man to man comment, this would be interpreted by
> such hysterics here as an intended violence. Though you did this with
> Averbakh and refuseniks, a cowardly glossing over of certain suffering.
>
> Whereas I merely say you lack any decency, and you practiced your
> 'Californian' arts this way against many people in private, and I am
> determining to produce all your material here in public, and if you get
> sued, so be it! I think it is entirely likely it will happen!
>
> Since it is very likely, you and your confederates, with your gross
> impertenances know no restraint since you think my reticence a weakness.
>
> It ain't.
>
> In this issue, yet another issue in your record, you are content to issue
> defamations rather than inquiries about what goes on.
>
> You are a petit-faciste, no? You insist your interpretation allows you to
> denigrate other people so you may be superior to them - all those you rag
> against achieving substantially more chessic worth than you ever dreamed
> on.
>
> So - time is short now - but since you insist Kingston, then I shall now
> do
> as I please, since to honor the privacy of such a dishonorable pretender,
> is
> beyond the balance of any well-being normally evidenced by silence or
> respect for privacy.
>
> Should you not understand the above, I am going to OUT you, Kingston, in
> my
> own time ~ all of it.
>
> And may you enjoy the ride. I will not, but I will do it. And I will do
> it,
> since your intent is to damage and defame.
>
> Phil Innes
Um, Phil -- would you care to provide us an actual *_link_* to this
alleged Chessbase -- Or is it ChessCafe? You've claimed both now --
article that supposedly proves USCF and FIDE were 'not interested' in
Elo's work in the 1960s? It might give the rest of us a chance to
understand what you're actually talking about, since clearly you
don't.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 06:04:15
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 18, 8:38=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6c410abe-7fb0-401b-a2c7-a3e1957bc042@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
> > Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
> > until 1891.
>
> > ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase
> > recently] even in the 1960's.
>
> =A0 Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe. I
> quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
> Present" (Arco,1978), page 11:
>
> =A0 "In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
> Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
> rating system and to revise and improve its technical and
> administrative features. It fell upon the writer, as chairman, to
> examine the basic theory and rationale of the rating systems of the
> chess world ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF
> for rating its entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by
> the World Chess Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players all
> over the world ..."
>
> =A0 So much for USCF and FIDE being "not interested ... even in the
> 1960s."
>
> **ROFL - Our Taylor quotes chess politicians! He thinks he is arguing wit=
h
> me again, but actually now directly with what Elo himself said!
Your comments are often bizarre, Phil, but this one is especially
so. As I made very clear, I quoted Dr. Elo himself.
Phil, I seriously think you have some sort of reading and/or
cognition/comprehension disability, bordering on (or perhaps well
into) dementia. Seek professional help immediately.
> Maybe Our
> Taylor should write an angry letter to Chessbase?
>
> > Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all.
> > Rertro-ratings projected on these players have nothing to do with Elo -
> > they
> > are estimates or projections, not Elo's measurements.
>
> =A0 Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe.
> Elo's book gives 5-year peak retro-ratings for hundreds of players on
> pages 191-196.
>
> **Our Taylor wants to argue that measurement and retro-ratings are the sa=
me
> thing - and for 'hundreds of players' too. Of course, in order to bridge =
the
> gap between actual measured ratings, and those of when he speaks, 1891, y=
ou
> would have to regress all the players in-between to have these appear on =
the
> same scale. Otherwise they are ratings* with a qualifier, that they are n=
ot
> on the same scale as currently, and indeed, are estimates.
>
> =A0Steinitz comes in at 2650. My statement that Steinitz
> was world #1 until 1891 is based on Elo's chart on pages 88-89.
>
> =A0 So, Phil: if these are "not Elo's measurements," whose are they, and
> what are they doing in Elo's book?
>
> **I also wonder if that is all that Elo said about his ratings in his boo=
k?
> What he is reported to have said at chessbase is that he was profoundly s=
ad
> at the way that his system was applied by USCF and by Fide.
That is not at all the same thing as you reported. You said "ELO
[sic] having not interested USCF and Fide [sic] in his material (see
chessbase recently) even in the 1960's." Clearly USCF and FIDE were
_very_ interested in Elo's material in the 1960s, to such an extent
that they formally adopted his system.
As usual, you shift ground by trying to equate two very different
things, in this case (1) interest in Elo's system, and (2) the way his
system was applied.
> =A0 Our Phil will now deny that he ever said what he clearly has said,
> or that its meaning is quite different from what it obviously is.
>
> **Will he?
Obviously you just did.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 16:58:51
From: Chess One
Subject: !Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c0a66093-0608-400f-9506-0aba02b4b0a2@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 8:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6c410abe-7fb0-401b-a2c7-a3e1957bc042@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
> > Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
> > until 1891.
>
> > ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase
> > recently] even in the 1960's.
>
> Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe. I
> quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
> Present" (Arco,1978), page 11:
>
> "In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
> Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
> rating system and to revise and improve its technical and
> administrative features. It fell upon the writer, as chairman, to
> examine the basic theory and rationale of the rating systems of the
> chess world ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF
> for rating its entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by
> the World Chess Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players all
> over the world ..."
>
> So much for USCF and FIDE being "not interested ... even in the
> 1960s."
>
> **ROFL - Our Taylor quotes chess politicians! He thinks he is arguing with
> me again, but actually now directly with what Elo himself said!
Your comments are often bizarre, Phil,
**that is some state of your own apprehension, but...
but this one is especially
so. As I made very clear, I quoted Dr. Elo himself.
**You quoted him, early, I quoted him late, /after/ his experience in seeing
his Idea deployed by USCF and FIDE. Did you still not read his own words at
Chesscafe? Shit! That's three times already!~ But maybe you don't /want/ to
read that in case it introduces a doubt into the certainties of your tiny
mind?
Phil, I seriously think you have some sort of reading and/or
cognition/comprehension disability, bordering on (or perhaps well
into) dementia. Seek professional help immediately.
You are merely an insubstantial commentator, Sir. A light-weight in all
things.Your facetious 'understanding' borrowed from others and not ever of
your own wit, and your constant defamations of all you do not understand,
nor wish to - a very great amount by any reconging - preceed you like a wave
of undigested chaff.
While I am certain you would only issue such a comment at a distance,
lacking the balls for any man to man comment, this would be interpreted by
such hysterics here as an intended violence. Though you did this with
Averbakh and refuseniks, a cowardly glossing over of certain suffering.
Whereas I merely say you lack any decency, and you practiced your
'Californian' arts this way against many people in private, and I am
determining to produce all your material here in public, and if you get
sued, so be it! I think it is entirely likely it will happen!
Since it is very likely, you and your confederates, with your gross
impertenances know no restraint since you think my reticence a weakness.
It ain't.
In this issue, yet another issue in your record, you are content to issue
defamations rather than inquiries about what goes on.
You are a petit-faciste, no? You insist your interpretation allows you to
denigrate other people so you may be superior to them - all those you rag
against achieving substantially more chessic worth than you ever dreamed on.
So - time is short now - but since you insist Kingston, then I shall now do
as I please, since to honor the privacy of such a dishonorable pretender, is
beyond the balance of any well-being normally evidenced by silence or
respect for privacy.
Should you not understand the above, I am going to OUT you, Kingston, in my
own time ~ all of it.
And may you enjoy the ride. I will not, but I will do it. And I will do it,
since your intent is to damage and defame.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 16:47:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 17, 6:55=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > I have made this list of championship matches and the players'
> > > rankings, according to Chessmetrics.com (although taken with a pinch
> > > of salt as this site is historically unreliable).
>
> > > As you can see the #1 has always played the match, except:
>
> > > a) 1890, 1892 when Lasker was already #1.
> > > b) 1907, 1908 because Chessmetrics penalizes Lasker's inactivity.
They are /consistent/ in punishing everyone's
inactivity and also in rewarding folks who quit,
by continuing to rate them as though they had
not. (Sometimes this can be seen by names
appearing at the top of graphs on which they
do not even belong.)
> > =A0 Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinit=
z-
> > Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
> > until 1891.
"Elo has..." obviously indicates a reference
to Dr. Elo, based on the way the sentence is
worded.
> > ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase
> > recently] even in the 1960's.
Dr. IMnes appears to be unaware of the fact
that "Elo" referred to the person, not a ratings
system. Obviously, had it referred to such a
system, the particular one would need to be
specified (for otherwise any number of fools
could just assume the wrong one at random,
as is their habit).
> =A0 Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe. I
> quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
> Present" (Arco,1978)
Oh gawd-- I hope this is not going to be in
Middle English... .
> page 11:
>
> =A0 "In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
> Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
> rating system and to revise and improve its technical and
> administrative features. It fell upon the writer, as chairman, to
> examine the basic theory and rationale of the rating systems of the
> chess world ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF
> for rating its entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by
> the World Chess Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players all
> over the world ..."
Clearly, the FIDE is an elitist organization, run
for the benefit of the few, and thus it should be
eradicated in favor of something more
democratic.
> > Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all.
> > Rertro-ratings projected on these players have nothing to do with Elo -=
they
> > are estimates or projections, not Elo's measurements.
> =A0 Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe.
> Elo's book gives 5-year peak retro-ratings for hundreds of players on
> pages 191-196. Steinitz comes in at 2650. My statement that Steinitz
> was world #1 until 1891 is based on Elo's chart on pages 88-89.
It also doesn't hurt that having taken on all
comers, Mr. Stenitz set a standard which
has yet to be matched by any subsequent
world champion of chess.
> =A0 So, Phil: if these are "not Elo's measurements," whose are they, and
> what are they doing in Elo's book?
>
> =A0 Our Phil will now deny that he ever said what he clearly has said,
> or that its meaning is quite different from what it obviously is.
But it's meaning was quite different-- in the
mind of Dr, IMnes. I think it is obvious PI
failed to account for the existence of Dr. Elo
the person, grasping only the known-to-him
existence of the ratings system called by
the same name.
All this trouble could have been avoided
had Mr. Kingston simply followed protocol;
if he had, for instance, referred to the man
as "Dr. Elo" instead of just "Elo", even a
dimwit like nearly-IMnes likely would not
have gotten himself all confused. As the
man said, "what we have here is failure to
communicate".
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 15:55:20
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 17, 6:00=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c4e8a7c3-a98b-4843-a4c8-197dd0e52154@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 17, 1:47 am, Chvsanchez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have made this list of championship matches and the players'
> > rankings, according to Chessmetrics.com (although taken with a pinch
> > of salt as this site is historically unreliable).
>
> > As you can see the #1 has always played the match, except:
>
> > a) 1890, 1892 when Lasker was already #1.
> > b) 1907, 1908 because Chessmetrics penalizes Lasker's inactivity.
> > c) 1969 when Fischer was already #1.
> > d) 2004.
>
> > # 3-# 7 2004/09 Kramnik - L=E9k=F3
> > # 1-# 3 2000/10 Kasparov - Kramnik
> > # 1-# 3 1995/09 Kasparov - Anand
> > # 1-# 9 1993/09 Kasparov - Short
> > # 1-# 2 1990/10 Kasparov - Karpov
> > # 1-# 2 1987/10 Kasparov - Karpov
> > # 1-# 2 1986/07 Kasparov - Karpov
> > # 2-# 1 1985/09 Karpov - Kasparov
> > # 2-# 1 1984/09 Karpov - Kasparov
> > # 1-# 2 1981/10 Karpov - Korchnoi
> > # 1-# 2 1978/07 Karpov - Korchnoi
> > NR-# 1 1975 Fischer - Karpov
> > # 7-# 1 1972/07 Spassky - Fischer
> > # 4-# 3 1969/04 Petrosian - Spassky
> > # 8-# 1 1966/04 Petrosian - Spassky
> > # 7-# 1 1963/03 Botvinnik - Petrosian
> > # 1-# 9 1961/03 Tal - Botvinnik
> > # 6-# 1 1960/03 Botvinnik - Tal
> > # 1-# 5 1958/03 Smyslov - Botvinnik
> > # 4-# 1 1957/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
> > # 3-# 1 1954/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
> > # 7-# 1 1951/03 Botvinnik - Bronstein
> > # 1-# 4 1937/10 Euwe - Alekhine
> > # 1-# 3 1935/10 Alekhine - Euwe
> > # 1-# 5 1934/04 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
> > # 1-# 4 1929/09 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
> > # 1-# 2 1927/09 Capablanca - Alekhine
> > # 2-# 1 1921/03 Lasker - Capablanca
> > # 1-# 14 1910/11 Lasker - Janowski
> > # 1-# 6 1910/01 Lasker - Schlechter
> > # 2-# 6 1908/08 Lasker - Tarrasch
> > # 9-# 4 1907/01 Lasker - Marshall
> > # 1-# 4 1896/11 Lasker - Steinitz
> > # 4-# 1 1894/03 Steinitz - Lasker
> > # 3-# 4 1892/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
> > # 5-# 6 1890/12 Steinitz - Gunsberg
> > # 1-NR 1889/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
> > # 1-# 2 1886/01 Steinitz - Zukertort
>
> > Best regards,
>
> > C. S=E1nchez
>
> =A0 Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
> Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
> until 1891.
>
> ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase
> recently] even in the 1960's.
Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe. I
quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
Present" (Arco,1978), page 11:
"In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
rating system and to revise and improve its technical and
administrative features. It fell upon the writer, as chairman, to
examine the basic theory and rationale of the rating systems of the
chess world ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF
for rating its entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by
the World Chess Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players all
over the world ..."
So much for USCF and FIDE being "not interested ... even in the
1960s."
> Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all.
> Rertro-ratings projected on these players have nothing to do with Elo - t=
hey
> are estimates or projections, not Elo's measurements.
Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe.
Elo's book gives 5-year peak retro-ratings for hundreds of players on
pages 191-196. Steinitz comes in at 2650. My statement that Steinitz
was world #1 until 1891 is based on Elo's chart on pages 88-89.
So, Phil: if these are "not Elo's measurements," whose are they, and
what are they doing in Elo's book?
Our Phil will now deny that he ever said what he clearly has said,
or that its meaning is quite different from what it obviously is.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 08:38:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6c410abe-7fb0-401b-a2c7-a3e1957bc042@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
> Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
> until 1891.
>
> ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase
> recently] even in the 1960's.
Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe. I
quote from Dr. Arpad Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
Present" (Arco,1978), page 11:
"In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
rating system and to revise and improve its technical and
administrative features. It fell upon the writer, as chairman, to
examine the basic theory and rationale of the rating systems of the
chess world ... Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF
for rating its entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by
the World Chess Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players all
over the world ..."
So much for USCF and FIDE being "not interested ... even in the
1960s."
**ROFL - Our Taylor quotes chess politicians! He thinks he is arguing with
me again, but actually now directly with what Elo himself said! Maybe Our
Taylor should write an angry letter to Chessbase?
> Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all.
> Rertro-ratings projected on these players have nothing to do with Elo -
> they
> are estimates or projections, not Elo's measurements.
Our Phil once again proves that he inhabits an alternate universe.
Elo's book gives 5-year peak retro-ratings for hundreds of players on
pages 191-196.
**Our Taylor wants to argue that measurement and retro-ratings are the same
thing - and for 'hundreds of players' too. Of course, in order to bridge the
gap between actual measured ratings, and those of when he speaks, 1891, you
would have to regress all the players in-between to have these appear on the
same scale. Otherwise they are ratings* with a qualifier, that they are not
on the same scale as currently, and indeed, are estimates.
Steinitz comes in at 2650. My statement that Steinitz
was world #1 until 1891 is based on Elo's chart on pages 88-89.
So, Phil: if these are "not Elo's measurements," whose are they, and
what are they doing in Elo's book?
**I also wonder if that is all that Elo said about his ratings in his book?
What he is reported to have said at chessbase is that he was profoundly sad
at the way that his system was applied by USCF and by Fide.
Our Phil will now deny that he ever said what he clearly has said,
or that its meaning is quite different from what it obviously is.
**Will he? Our Phil will continue to ask Taylor Kingston if his sound-bite
history is sufficient background when as indicated above - sourced even! -
Elo's own view on these things are quite the same as he, Kingston,
represents. But like the Taimanov analsyis being unimportant to Kingston
[ROFL] any qualification to Elo's statement will also be unimportant, since
he has found his sound-bite, and this simple understanding is quite enough
for his simple but absolutist mind.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 07:47:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 17, 1:47=A0am, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have made this list of championship matches and the players'
> rankings, according to Chessmetrics.com (although taken with a pinch
> of salt as this site is historically unreliable).
>
> As you can see the #1 has always played the match, except:
>
> a) 1890, 1892 when Lasker was already #1.
> b) 1907, 1908 because Chessmetrics penalizes Lasker's inactivity.
> c) 1969 when Fischer was already #1.
> d) 2004.
>
> # 3-# 7 2004/09 Kramnik - L=E9k=F3
> # 1-# 3 2000/10 Kasparov - Kramnik
> # 1-# 3 1995/09 Kasparov - Anand
> # 1-# 9 1993/09 Kasparov - Short
> # 1-# 2 1990/10 Kasparov - Karpov
> # 1-# 2 1987/10 Kasparov - Karpov
> # 1-# 2 1986/07 Kasparov - Karpov
> # 2-# 1 1985/09 Karpov - Kasparov
> # 2-# 1 1984/09 Karpov - Kasparov
> # 1-# 2 1981/10 Karpov - Korchnoi
> # 1-# 2 1978/07 Karpov - Korchnoi
> NR-# 1 1975 =A0 =A0Fischer - Karpov
> # 7-# 1 1972/07 Spassky - Fischer
> # 4-# 3 1969/04 Petrosian - Spassky
> # 8-# 1 1966/04 Petrosian - Spassky
> # 7-# 1 1963/03 Botvinnik - Petrosian
> # 1-# 9 1961/03 Tal - Botvinnik
> # 6-# 1 1960/03 Botvinnik - Tal
> # 1-# 5 1958/03 Smyslov - Botvinnik
> # 4-# 1 1957/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
> # 3-# 1 1954/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
> # 7-# 1 1951/03 Botvinnik - Bronstein
> # 1-# 4 1937/10 Euwe - Alekhine
> # 1-# 3 1935/10 Alekhine - Euwe
> # 1-# 5 1934/04 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
> # 1-# 4 1929/09 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
> # 1-# 2 1927/09 Capablanca - Alekhine
> # 2-# 1 1921/03 Lasker - Capablanca
> # 1-# 14 1910/11 Lasker - Janowski
> # 1-# 6 1910/01 Lasker - Schlechter
> # 2-# 6 1908/08 Lasker - Tarrasch
> # 9-# 4 1907/01 Lasker - Marshall
> # 1-# 4 1896/11 Lasker - Steinitz
> # 4-# 1 1894/03 Steinitz - Lasker
> # 3-# 4 1892/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
> # 5-# 6 1890/12 Steinitz - Gunsberg
> # 1-NR 1889/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
> # 1-# 2 1886/01 Steinitz - Zukertort
>
> Best regards,
>
> C. S=E1nchez
Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
until 1891.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 18:00:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c4e8a7c3-a98b-4843-a4c8-197dd0e52154@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 17, 1:47 am, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have made this list of championship matches and the players'
> rankings, according to Chessmetrics.com (although taken with a pinch
> of salt as this site is historically unreliable).
>
> As you can see the #1 has always played the match, except:
>
> a) 1890, 1892 when Lasker was already #1.
> b) 1907, 1908 because Chessmetrics penalizes Lasker's inactivity.
> c) 1969 when Fischer was already #1.
> d) 2004.
>
> # 3-# 7 2004/09 Kramnik - L�k�
> # 1-# 3 2000/10 Kasparov - Kramnik
> # 1-# 3 1995/09 Kasparov - Anand
> # 1-# 9 1993/09 Kasparov - Short
> # 1-# 2 1990/10 Kasparov - Karpov
> # 1-# 2 1987/10 Kasparov - Karpov
> # 1-# 2 1986/07 Kasparov - Karpov
> # 2-# 1 1985/09 Karpov - Kasparov
> # 2-# 1 1984/09 Karpov - Kasparov
> # 1-# 2 1981/10 Karpov - Korchnoi
> # 1-# 2 1978/07 Karpov - Korchnoi
> NR-# 1 1975 Fischer - Karpov
> # 7-# 1 1972/07 Spassky - Fischer
> # 4-# 3 1969/04 Petrosian - Spassky
> # 8-# 1 1966/04 Petrosian - Spassky
> # 7-# 1 1963/03 Botvinnik - Petrosian
> # 1-# 9 1961/03 Tal - Botvinnik
> # 6-# 1 1960/03 Botvinnik - Tal
> # 1-# 5 1958/03 Smyslov - Botvinnik
> # 4-# 1 1957/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
> # 3-# 1 1954/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
> # 7-# 1 1951/03 Botvinnik - Bronstein
> # 1-# 4 1937/10 Euwe - Alekhine
> # 1-# 3 1935/10 Alekhine - Euwe
> # 1-# 5 1934/04 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
> # 1-# 4 1929/09 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
> # 1-# 2 1927/09 Capablanca - Alekhine
> # 2-# 1 1921/03 Lasker - Capablanca
> # 1-# 14 1910/11 Lasker - Janowski
> # 1-# 6 1910/01 Lasker - Schlechter
> # 2-# 6 1908/08 Lasker - Tarrasch
> # 9-# 4 1907/01 Lasker - Marshall
> # 1-# 4 1896/11 Lasker - Steinitz
> # 4-# 1 1894/03 Steinitz - Lasker
> # 3-# 4 1892/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
> # 5-# 6 1890/12 Steinitz - Gunsberg
> # 1-NR 1889/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
> # 1-# 2 1886/01 Steinitz - Zukertort
>
> Best regards,
>
> C. S�nchez
Lasker #2 in 1908, and #4 in 1907? Don't make me laugh! And Steinitz-
Gunsberg 1890 as a 5-6 matchup? Very questionable. Elo has Steinitz #1
until 1891.
ELO having not interested USCF and Fide in his material [see chessbase
recently] even in the 1960's. Elo has Steinitz nowhere at all.
Rertro-ratings projected on these players have nothing to do with Elo - they
are estimates or projections, not Elo's measurements.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 22:47:17
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Re: Anand-Kramnik, #5 versus #6
|
I have made this list of championship matches and the players'
rankings, according to Chessmetrics.com (although taken with a pinch
of salt as this site is historically unreliable).
As you can see the #1 has always played the match, except:
a) 1890, 1892 when Lasker was already #1.
b) 1907, 1908 because Chessmetrics penalizes Lasker's inactivity.
c) 1969 when Fischer was already #1.
d) 2004.
# 3-# 7 2004/09 Kramnik - L=E9k=F3
# 1-# 3 2000/10 Kasparov - Kramnik
# 1-# 3 1995/09 Kasparov - Anand
# 1-# 9 1993/09 Kasparov - Short
# 1-# 2 1990/10 Kasparov - Karpov
# 1-# 2 1987/10 Kasparov - Karpov
# 1-# 2 1986/07 Kasparov - Karpov
# 2-# 1 1985/09 Karpov - Kasparov
# 2-# 1 1984/09 Karpov - Kasparov
# 1-# 2 1981/10 Karpov - Korchnoi
# 1-# 2 1978/07 Karpov - Korchnoi
NR-# 1 1975 Fischer - Karpov
# 7-# 1 1972/07 Spassky - Fischer
# 4-# 3 1969/04 Petrosian - Spassky
# 8-# 1 1966/04 Petrosian - Spassky
# 7-# 1 1963/03 Botvinnik - Petrosian
# 1-# 9 1961/03 Tal - Botvinnik
# 6-# 1 1960/03 Botvinnik - Tal
# 1-# 5 1958/03 Smyslov - Botvinnik
# 4-# 1 1957/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
# 3-# 1 1954/03 Botvinnik - Smyslov
# 7-# 1 1951/03 Botvinnik - Bronstein
# 1-# 4 1937/10 Euwe - Alekhine
# 1-# 3 1935/10 Alekhine - Euwe
# 1-# 5 1934/04 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
# 1-# 4 1929/09 Alekhine - Bogoljubov
# 1-# 2 1927/09 Capablanca - Alekhine
# 2-# 1 1921/03 Lasker - Capablanca
# 1-# 14 1910/11 Lasker - Janowski
# 1-# 6 1910/01 Lasker - Schlechter
# 2-# 6 1908/08 Lasker - Tarrasch
# 9-# 4 1907/01 Lasker - Marshall
# 1-# 4 1896/11 Lasker - Steinitz
# 4-# 1 1894/03 Steinitz - Lasker
# 3-# 4 1892/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
# 5-# 6 1890/12 Steinitz - Gunsberg
# 1-NR 1889/01 Steinitz - Chigorin
# 1-# 2 1886/01 Steinitz - Zukertort
Best regards,
C. S=E1nchez
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 00:11:14
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 10, 8:14=A0pm, Christian <[email protected] > wrote:
> What if the world championship is between the number 5 and the number
> 6 of the FIDE ranking?
>
> Is there any precedent?
Perhaps the Karpov-Timman match after Kasparov split from FIDE. Karpov
I believe was upset by Nigel Short. Timman was prbably in the Top 5 at
the time of that Match with Karpov. I suspect even with the upset loss
to Short that Karpov was still rated 2nd in the World. My guess it was
a 2vs 5. EJAY
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 09:07:42
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: #5 versus #6
|
On Sep 10, 8:14=A0pm, Christian <[email protected] > wrote:
> What if the world championship is between the number 5 and the number
> 6 of the FIDE ranking?
>
> Is there any precedent?
There have been several "world champions" to come out of the big
FIDE knock-out free-for-alls who were well below the #1 ranking at the
time, e.g. Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov, IIRC.
If you mean championship matches rather than those, historically
there is not much precedent. There were cases where the challenger was
probably no better than #5 or 6 in the world at the time, but the
champion was definitely #1, e.g. the Lasker-Steinitz rematch, Lasker-
Marshall 1907, Lasker-Janowski 1910, or Alekhine Bogolyubov 1929. A
more modern instance would be Kasparov-Short 1993.
Offhand I can't think of any title match that really fits a 5-vs.-6
description. One might try to make a case for Euwe-Alekhine 1937,
based on the results of, say, Nottingham 1936, various 1937
tournaments, and AVRO 1938.
|
|
