Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

Main

Date: 17 Apr 2008 05:58:20
From: RookHouse
Subject: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

Head-to-head statistics, poll results, upcoming match details, and one
of their more memorable games from 2001.

http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=176

Thanks,
Morphy
www.rookhouse.com

Date: 20 Apr 2008 09:33:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

> > Always restart computer after 10 hours as Applets go Slow when working
> > for long hours.
>
> =A0 Good grief-- why doesn't the program do this
> kind of thing itself? =A0Clear the air, clean out the
> muck, grease the wheels, batten down the
> hatches. =A0You can't expect to use Americans
> for cheap labor-- that's what we pay *you* for!

I have given you the Car, Now you are driving it. So you should Stop
when Engine gets Hot. Car & Computers are just Iron/ Plastic with no
Brains. They will keep working till the Monitor Burn out. Thats why
use ScreenSavers when not in use.

Simmilarly after 10 hours use Computer should be restarted. Just like
Human need a good sleep everyday.

> =A0 "We" are supposed to be the brains of the
> operation, see; at least, that's what I keep
> reading in all the newsletters. =A0(Personally, I
> think it's bunk. =A0Just look at our "king",
> President Bush, for instance; he's got us
> growing corn -- of all things -- to convert into
> ethanol, to burn as automobile propellant; if
> you ask me, you can't get much stupider
> than that.)

I think Solar Energy is better Option. These days Solar energy is
getting Cheap. And many new techniques will give energy as cheap as
Oil & Coal.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 20 Apr 2008 08:57:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 20, 9:56 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> If you win against Advance Level you will get +40 points. And if you
> loose against Advance Level you loose only +2 points.
>
> So even if you loose 10 games with Advance level and win just 1 Game
> you will get +20 Rating.

Aha. So, all I need to do is live forever and thereby
complete a few dozen games against the Advance
level, and I am sure to get right up there with the
2300+s and the nearly-an-IMs!

> Lets see how you face the Advance Level.

Veeeeery carefully.

> Today the game was further improved. Now it will look for Opponents
> King and device new strategies to win the game. Earlier it used to
> wait for Opponent to do a blunder. But now it will go ahead to win the
> game.
>
> Have you restarted the computer after every 10 moves else the Applet
> will go slow.
>
> Always restart computer after 10 hours as Applets go Slow when working
> for long hours.

Good grief-- why doesn't the program do this
kind of thing itself? Clear the air, clean out the
muck, grease the wheels, batten down the
hatches. You can't expect to use Americans
for cheap labor-- that's what we pay *you* for!

"We" are supposed to be the brains of the
operation, see; at least, that's what I keep
reading in all the newsletters. (Personally, I
think it's bunk. Just look at our "king",
President Bush, for instance; he's got us
growing corn -- of all things -- to convert into
ethanol, to burn as automobile propellant; if
you ask me, you can't get much stupider
than that.)

-- help bot

Date: 20 Apr 2008 06:56:13
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

> =A0 But first things first: I am either going to win the
> exchange (a Rook for a Bishop or Knight), or I
> will trade the Queens off into a favorable ending
> where my center pawns can safely advance-- I
> hope. =A0Hey, even if I lose, this level is rated 2400,
> and I'm just a lowly 1500 player.

If you win against Advance Level you will get +40 points. And if you
loose against Advance Level you loose only +2 points.

So even if you loose 10 games with Advance level and win just 1 Game
you will get +20 Rating.

Lets see how you face the Advance Level.

Today the game was further improved. Now it will look for Opponents
King and device new strategies to win the game. Earlier it used to
wait for Opponent to do a blunder. But now it will go ahead to win the
game.

Have you restarted the computer after every 10 moves else the Applet
will go slow.

Always restart computer after 10 hours as Applets go Slow when working
for long hours.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 20 Apr 2008 03:03:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 20, 2:12 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> 1. My program is meant for Human Opponents Only. And I am happy to
> know Human Opponents are getting real hard to win.

Modern computers are *very* fast. In the old
days, it took real skill to develop a chess program
that could test the average tournament player.

> 2. GetClub works on Applet which gets very low resources from the
> Browser.

Why is it not adjustable?

> 3. GetClub do not utize the multi cores people usually have. I was
> thinking about it but it looks like dooms day to convert the program
> as 100s new bugs will come up.

As far as I know, none of my programs are
using more than the standard 32-bit stuff; I
read that in order to actually utilize the fancy
stuff, you need to have a 64-bit operating
system (correct me if I'm wrong), like say,
Windows XP Professional. (Who has that?)

> > objective. The vast majority of humans play in
> > a certain style which differentiates them clearly
> > from computers (which tend toward hyper-
> > aggressiveness and of course are much better
> > at tactics).
>
> True. But a Human may make great moves if he analyze for 1 hour on a
> move. I think he has a Chess Board in front and he plas each move and
> see what will happen if that move is played and after analyzing each
> move for hour he makes his move.

You are merely assuming that the entire hour
is spent on analyzing the position. In reality,
humans don't take an hour for every move-- but
a computer operator might. Humans tend to
take just as long as is required to satisfy them
that they have found a good move, and that
varies dramatically, depending on the position
and their goals.

> May be he uses Fritz thinking for 1 hour while GetClub Master Level is
> thinking just 5-10 min on that small Applet.

Quite possible. I can't say what the quality
of Zeb's play was, but the style was definitely
that of a computer.

> I heard you are playing against Advance Level? It will take a week to
> finish that game I suppose.

I made the mistake of looking at the thinking
times on your Web site-- which are way off. No
excuses this time; fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me a hundred times, shame on *me*.

I did not want to play the already beaten down
Master level, since Zeb took about sixty points
from it already. And I somehow missed that the
Normal level was rated 1800-- plenty high enough
for me to gain rating points.

> I think it is 90% Chances that Advance Level will win against you and
> only 10% Chances you may win.

My attack isn't working out so well, but if I can
keep the computer's Rooks at bay, I have passed
pawns all over the place which are defensible and
connected-- that's normally a win in the endgame.

Rooks are a tad clumsy at stopping connected
passed pawns, such as mine (e3, d4 and g3, h2),
but they can sometimes get out of control,
invading behind the lines. In this game, however,
I'm not worried about the Rooks; it's the Knight
that scares me. What if I get stuck having to
trade my "good" Bishop for the pesky Knight, and
then am unable (for whatever reason) to advance
my passed pawns? I have an ugly, "bad" Bishop
at d2, which is screaming to be set free via p-e4.

But first things first: I am either going to win the
exchange (a Rook for a Bishop or Knight), or I
will trade the Queens off into a favorable ending
where my center pawns can safely advance-- I
hope. Hey, even if I lose, this level is rated 2400,
and I'm just a lowly 1500 player.

-- help bot

Date: 19 Apr 2008 23:12:50
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

> > I do not think Zebediah is taking any help from strong program he is
> > thinking 1 hour on single move and on some moves as much as 10-20
> > min / move. He has lots of patience to think so long and win the
> > Master Level.
>
> =A0 Just look at the actual moves, and ask yourself
> if these are the moves of a computer, or of a
> human. =A0I know it hurts to think that some other
> program is beating yours, but try to remain

I have no bad feeling if another computer beats GetClub Program at
all.

Why?

1. My program is meant for Human Opponents Only. And I am happy to
know Human Opponents are getting real hard to win.

2. GetClub works on Applet which gets very low resources from the
Browser.

3. GetClub do not utize the multi cores people usually have. I was
thinking about it but it looks like dooms day to convert the program
as 100s new bugs will come up.

> objective. =A0The vast majority of humans play in
> a certain style which differentiates them clearly
> from computers (which tend toward hyper-
> aggressiveness and of course are much better
> at tactics).

True. But a Human may make great moves if he analyze for 1 hour on a
move. I think he has a Chess Board in front and he plas each move and
see what will happen if that move is played and after analyzing each
move for hour he makes his move.

May be he uses Fritz thinking for 1 hour while GetClub Master Level is
thinking just 5-10 min on that small Applet.

I heard you are playing against Advance Level? It will take a week to
finish that game I suppose.

I think it is 90% Chances that Advance Level will win against you and
only 10% Chances you may win.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 19 Apr 2008 01:50:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 19, 4:06 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> > > You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together on
> > > Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.
>
> > Well, since there were no computers back then, I
> > think it's safe to say that none of those guys were
> > using one-- not even Mr. Steinitz.
>
> > Oh, wait-- did you perhaps mean Zeb? In the
> > link you posted elsewhere, I looked at that one
>
> I was talking about Anand Kramnik Match. In the Photo at rookhouse it
> looks like they were playing on Laptops instead of Chess Boards.
>
> Zebediah has snatched your Crown yesterday. Now he ranks higher than
> you.
>
> He is again Molesting the Master Level to its knees.
>
> I think Now, Every month I need to raise the rating of Master Level
> else Zebediah will again drop it to rank 400.
>
> I do not think Zebediah is taking any help from strong program he is
> thinking 1 hour on single move and on some moves as much as 10-20
> min / move. He has lots of patience to think so long and win the
> Master Level.

Maybe he is busy with other things, and is not
devoting 100% of his time to relaying moves.

Just look at the actual moves, and ask yourself
if these are the moves of a computer, or of a
human. I know it hurts to think that some other
program is beating yours, but try to remain
objective. The vast majority of humans play in
a certain style which differentiates them clearly
from computers (which tend toward hyper-
aggressiveness and of course are much better
at tactics).

I believe this issue has come up before; many
moons ago, you asked me if, like you, I thought
Zebediah might be using a computer; I wrote
that I had not examined his games, but based
on just the few I had seen, yes, he was playing
like a computer. Nothing has changed... .

Maybe there is more information about this
somewhere out there on the internet; maybe a
link to some program which is claimed to be
able to "detect" computer use.

-- help bot

Date: 19 Apr 2008 01:06:21
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

> > You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together on
> > Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.
>
> =A0Well, since there were no computers back then, I
> think it's safe to say that none of those guys were
> using one-- not even Mr. Steinitz.
>
> =A0 Oh, wait-- did you perhaps mean Zeb? =A0In the
> link you posted elsewhere, I looked at that one

I was talking about Anand Kramnik Match. In the Photo at rookhouse it
looks like they were playing on Laptops instead of Chess Boards.

Zebediah has snatched your Crown yesterday. Now he ranks higher than
you.

He is again Molesting the Master Level to its knees.

I think Now, Every month I need to raise the rating of Master Level
else Zebediah will again drop it to rank 400.

I do not think Zebediah is taking any help from strong program he is
thinking 1 hour on single move and on some moves as much as 10-20
min / move. He has lots of patience to think so long and win the
Master Level.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 19 Apr 2008 00:39:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 18, 1:57 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together on
> Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.

Well, since there were no computers back then, I
think it's safe to say that none of those guys were
using one-- not even Mr. Steinitz.

Oh, wait-- did you perhaps mean Zeb? In the
link you posted elsewhere, I looked at that one
game and yes, he was probably using a chess
program to select his moves. If there were
some sort of "magic detection program" you
could run that game through, it would "flag" at
least six or eight moves as obvious computer
giveaways. (BTW, it's a really ugly thing to
watch, as a weaker program gets killed by a
stronger one.)

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that all the
supposedly strong players here have run away,
leaving a computer operator like Zeb to claim
the number one position. You see, the whole
bedside-manner was off; you got off on the
wrong foot by making all those false claims,
and never recovered.

But not to worry! Soon, you will have the
world's strongest chess program, and they
will crawl on their bellies to buy a copy for
only 999 rupees... .

-- help bot

Date: 18 Apr 2008 10:43:01
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

> > I think Sanny was asking about the Anand-Kramnik match, which, I
> > assume, will be played on a board, as usual.
>
> =A0 Very difficult to know that, since by the time of his post the topic
> had shifted to the relative merits of Showalter, Mackenzie, Mason et
> al, and Sanny both changed the subject title and included no previous
> quote to indicate what his question referred to. Given Sanny's general

I replied to Rook house First Comment after seeing the Photo.

I was not at all talking about the other players. I was only concerned
about the Kramnik - Anand Match.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:44:57
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 18, 5:53=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:57=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together on
> > Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.
>
> =A0 I find it hard to believe this is a serious question, Sanny. Most of
> the players we've been discussing died before computers were even
> invented.

Yes, Richerdby is Correct I was talking about the Anand-Kramnik Match

I saw the image where Anand and Kramnik are sitting with Laptops.

http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=3D176

In the image : http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/anan=
d-kramnik_amber2008.jpg

I was just wondering if they are playing via LAN Connection A Sign of
Modern Tournament.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:43:36
From:
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 18, 9:33=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 1:57=3DA0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together
> >> on Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.
>
> > I find it hard to believe this is a serious question, Sanny. Most of
> > the players we've been discussing died before computers were even
> > invented.
>
> I think Sanny was asking about the Anand-Kramnik match, which, I
> assume, will be played on a board, as usual.

Very difficult to know that, since by the time of his post the topic
had shifted to the relative merits of Showalter, Mackenzie, Mason et
al, and Sanny both changed the subject title and included no previous
quote to indicate what his question referred to. Given Sanny's general
ignorance about chess, it would not surprise me if he had no idea when
these 19th-century players actually lived.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 20:23:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

<[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I find it hard to believe this is a serious question, Sanny. Most
>>> of the players we've been discussing died before computers were
>>> even invented.
>>
>> I think Sanny was asking about the Anand-Kramnik match, which, I
>> assume, will be played on a board, as usual.
>
> Very difficult to know that, since by the time of his post the topic
> had shifted to the relative merits of Showalter, Mackenzie, Mason et
> al, and Sanny both changed the subject title and included no previous
> quote to indicate what his question referred to.

His post was a follow-up to the original post in the thread, of which
the Anand-Kramnik match was the sole subject. Unfortunately, as you
say, he didn't include any context; alas, Google hides the threading
information, which is criminal and turns a poor piece of posting into
a disaster.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but it's
invigorating!

Date: 18 Apr 2008 08:33:47
From:
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 18, 6:37=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 3:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 I'd say you've underrated him severely. He had career plus scores
> > agains Alekhine, Bogolyubov, Botvinnik, Flohr, Tartakower, and
> > Gruenfeld, and was even with Capablanca, Euwe, and Najdorf. I think
> > someone like that could handle Marshall, Mason, Mackenzie and
> > Showalter.
>
> Tough to compare players of different eras. =A0People have long argued
> that given today's resources, players of the past could have been even
> better than history remembers. =A0In addition, today's resources are
> based off the innovations of these players of the past. =A0One could
> also argue that today's players would not have been as good had they
> not had these resources and were forced to find original innovations
> like the players of past. =A0It's an endless circle of arguements and
> theories.

Aside from the accumulation of chess knowledge over the decades, one
of my main reasons for thinking today's best players are objectively
better than those of past generations is simply that more people play
now than before. Back in, say, Morphy's day, the number of serious
players was only a small fraction of the number today. To be #1 at any
competitive endeavor within a small group is usually easier than being
#1 among a large group. Therefore I feel pretty confident in thinking
that, say, Kasparov, who was #1 among millions of players worldwide,
is objectively stronger than, say, Morphy or Anderssen.

Dr. Elo advances this view on page 94 of "The Ratings of
Chessplayers Past and Present." He writes:

"One statistical consideration, based simply on the number of living
masters, supports the view that the best chess minds might be found in
modern times. The various grades of players may be compared to the
horizontal layers of a pyramid. As each layer is broadened [i.e. the
number of players increases -- TK], the layer above may also be
broadened, and if the very top layer is broadened, then it is possible
to raise the peak of the pyramid even higher ...
"In Morphy's days the players of Grandmaster grade could be counted
on the fingers, but now [i.e. 1978 -- TK], even without counting all
FIDE titleholders, the number is an order of magnitude greater."

> But I do get your point about Fine. =A0Thanks for sharing the
> information on him.

This is the best book about Fine that I know of:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review445.pdf

Date: 18 Apr 2008 05:53:37
From:
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 18, 1:57=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together on
> Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.

I find it hard to believe this is a serious question, Sanny. Most of
the players we've been discussing died before computers were even
invented.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 14:33:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:57=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together
>> on Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.
>
> I find it hard to believe this is a serious question, Sanny. Most of
> the players we've been discussing died before computers were even
> invented.

I think Sanny was asking about the Anand-Kramnik match, which, I
assume, will be played on a board, as usual.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Indelible Moistened Tree (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a tree but it's moist and it
can't be erased!

Date: 18 Apr 2008 04:06:58
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 3:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 I'd say you've underrated him severely. He had career plus scores
> agains Alekhine, Bogolyubov, Botvinnik, Flohr, Tartakower, and
> Gruenfeld, and was even with Capablanca, Euwe, and Najdorf. I think
> someone like that could handle Marshall, Mason, Mackenzie and
> Showalter.
>

I am not impling that you are doing this, but this does bring to mind
another point. It is completely impossible to fairly compare players
of the past to more recent players. Many argue that today's players
are way better (to which I disagree). Many argue that given today's
resources, the players of the past would be better than today's
players. In addition, one could argue that the players of the past
were better based on the lack of resources and their innovations that
were purely based on natural chess talent. It's an endless circle of
arguements and theories.

But I do get your point about Fine. Thanks for sharing the
information about him. I hope to get the time to research him further
in the near future.

Thanks,
Morphy

Date: 18 Apr 2008 03:37:59
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 3:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 I'd say you've underrated him severely. He had career plus scores
> agains Alekhine, Bogolyubov, Botvinnik, Flohr, Tartakower, and
> Gruenfeld, and was even with Capablanca, Euwe, and Najdorf. I think
> someone like that could handle Marshall, Mason, Mackenzie and
> Showalter.
>
Tough to compare players of different eras. People have long argued
that given today's resources, players of the past could have been even
better than history remembers. In addition, today's resources are
based off the innovations of these players of the past. One could
also argue that today's players would not have been as good had they
not had these resources and were forced to find original innovations
like the players of past. It's an endless circle of arguements and
theories.

But I do get your point about Fine. Thanks for sharing the
information on him.

Morphy

Date: 17 Apr 2008 22:57:00
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 17, 10:18=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:24 pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Are they playing using Computer instead of the Chess Board???
>
> =A0 Well, just look at former world champion Steinitz:
> he won match after match after match against all
> his chief rivals. =A0Now, I ask you: *who does that*?
> (Clearly, nobody-- unless they are using Fritz.)
>
> =A0 Afterward, every world champ has ducked or
> weaved around at least one of his most feared
> opponents, indicating that only Mr. Steinitz was
> using computer help. =A0I think maybe he had a
> time machine, and zipped back and forth to
> consult Fritz before making his moves. =A0As TK
> recently pointed out, this would also tend to
> explain how Mr. Steinitz was able to out-analyze
> so many other strong players, including Em.
> Lasker.
>
> =A0 Here's an interesting fact from the Web site
> chessmetrics.com: although certain problems
> exist -- such as rating players as active even
> after their retirement, as with Bobby Fischer --
> the CM site ranks Harry Pillsbury as the
> winner here, going by the same category as
> what Taylor Kingston selected from Dr. Elo's
> book (five-year peak rating). =A0Then Mr. Steinitz,
> then GM Reshevsky. =A0Obviously, selecting the
> five-year peak category is completely arbitrary
> and the results could vary considerably with
> another selection.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

You do not answer my Question were they playing the game together on
Computer or on Boards. I am talking abt real Match.

Do you know Zebediah is back and he won against the Master Level in
just 34 moves. For last 2 months no one was playing against the Master
Level. Now he was able to win the Master Level.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:31:10
From:
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 2:23=A0pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:03=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >You'd really put Fine so far down?
>
> Yes, but probably due to my better familiarity of the other players.
> The most I have actually read about Fine is limited to the extent of
> AVRO 1938 and New York 1948-49, as I built tournament pages on these
> events (www.rookhouse.com/events.html) and own the tournament books.

Fine had a relatively brief but very impressive international
tournament career. Highlights:

1st at Hastings 1935-6 (+6 -0 =3D3, ahead of Flohr, Tartakower et al)
1st at Zandvoort 1936 (+6 -0 =3D5, over Euwe, Tartakower, Keres,
Bogolyubov, Marocczy, Gruenfeld, Spielman et al)
=3D3rd-5th (w/ Reshevsky & Euwe) at Nottingham 1936 (+5 -0 =3D9, =BD-point=

behind Botvinnik and Capablanca, ahead of Alekhine, Flohr, Lasker,
Vidmar, Tartakower, Bogolyubov et al)
1st at Oslo 1936 (+6 -0 =3D1, over Flohr, Pedersen, Enevoldsen et al)
=3D1st-2nd (w/ Euwe) at Amsterdam 1936, (+3 -0 =3D2), over Alekhine,
Gruenfeld, Landau et al)
2nd at Hastings 1936-7 (+7 -1 =3D1, =BD-point behind Alekhine but ahead
of Eliskases, Vidmar et al)
1st at Stockholm 1937 (+7 -0 =3D2, ahead of Stahlberg, Stoltz,
Danielsson et al)
Match victory over Stahlberg +4 -1 =3D2, Jan-Feb 1937
1st at Moscow 1937 (+4 -1 =3D2, over Kan, Panov, Belavenyets,
Alatortsev, Yudovich, Bondarevsky, and Lilienthal)
1st at Leningrad 1937 (+3 -0 =3D2, ahead of Levenfish, Rabinovich,
Rauzer, Budo, and Ilyin-Zhenevsky)
=3D1st-2nd (w/ Keres) at Margate 1937 (+6 -0 =3D3, ahead of Alekhine,
Foltys, Milner-Barry et al)
=3D1st-3rd (w/ Keres and Grob) at Ostend 1937 (+6 -3, ahead of List,
Tartakower, Landau, Koltanowski et al)
2nd at Semmering 1937 (+2 -0 =3D12, behind Keres but ahead of
Capablanca, Reshevsky, Flohr, Eliskases, Ragozin and Petrovs)
=3D1st-2nd (w/ Keres) at AVRO 1938 (+6 -3 =3D5, ahead of Botvinnik,
Euwe, Reshevsky, Alekhine, Capablanca, and Flohr)

During 1933-37 Fine also had a +20 -6 =3D19 record in three Olympiads,
plus great scores in American tournaments. Not too shabby, I'd say.

> I really believe that Mackenzie and Mason are very underrated as
> tournament players. Showalter was one of the best match play
> competitors of all time, beating Lipschutz, Whitaker, Judd, Kemeny,
> Barry, Janowski, Albin, and VERY nearly Pillsbury in his prime. =A0He
> was also undefeated over several years of cable matches against
> Britain's best players.
>
> Like I said, my list is based more off of my knowledge of each player,
> so it may seem a little "out of whack" to some. =A0I don't doubt that I
> may have done Fine some injustice in my list.

I'd say you've underrated him severely. He had career plus scores
agains Alekhine, Bogolyubov, Botvinnik, Flohr, Tartakower, and
Gruenfeld, and was even with Capablanca, Euwe, and Najdorf. I think
someone like that could handle Marshall, Mason, Mackenzie and
Showalter.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 11:23:25
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 1:03=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>You'd really put Fine so far down?
>
Yes, but probably due to my better familiarity of the other players.
The most I have actually read about Fine is limited to the extent of
AVRO 1938 and New York 1948-49, as I built tournament pages on these
events (www.rookhouse.com/events.html) and own the tournament books.

I really believe that Mackenzie and Mason are very underrated as
tournament players. Showalter was one of the best match play
competitors of all time, beating Lipschutz, Whitaker, Judd, Kemeny,
Barry, Janowski, Albin, and VERY nearly Pillsbury in his prime. He
was also undefeated over several years of cable matches against
Britain's best players.

Like I said, my list is based more off of my knowledge of each player,
so it may seem a little "out of whack" to some. I don't doubt that I
may have done Fine some injustice in my list.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:24:43
From:
Subject: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

Sanny, quit hijacking and renaming threads just to spam your silly
program and post irrelevant nonsense. It's quite rude.

On Apr 17, 12:24=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Are they playing using Computer instead of the Chess Board???
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:18:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are they playing using Computer

On Apr 17, 12:24 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> Are they playing using Computer instead of the Chess Board???

Well, just look at former world champion Steinitz:
he won match after match after match against all
his chief rivals. Now, I ask you: *who does that*?
(Clearly, nobody-- unless they are using Fritz.)

Afterward, every world champ has ducked or
weaved around at least one of his most feared
opponents, indicating that only Mr. Steinitz was
using computer help. I think maybe he had a
time machine, and zipped back and forth to
consult Fritz before making his moves. As TK
recently pointed out, this would also tend to
explain how Mr. Steinitz was able to out-analyze
so many other strong players, including Em.
Lasker.

Here's an interesting fact from the Web site
chessmetrics.com: although certain problems
exist -- such as rating players as active even
after their retirement, as with Bobby Fischer --
the CM site ranks Harry Pillsbury as the
winner here, going by the same category as
what Taylor Kingston selected from Dr. Elo's
book (five-year peak rating). Then Mr. Steinitz,
then GM Reshevsky. Obviously, selecting the
five-year peak category is completely arbitrary
and the results could vary considerably with
another selection.

-- help bot

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:03:11
From:
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 12:24=A0pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 11:58=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 After Fischer and Morphy, Who Is The Next Best American Chess Player=

> > of All Time? And you offer a choice between Mackenzie, Pillsbury,
> > Showalter, Marshall, Reshevsky, Fine, Browne and Kamsky.
>
> > =A0 A difficult question. I'm going to duck part of it by sticking to my=

> > area of expertise, i.e. pre-1950 players, thus omitting Browne and
> > Kamsky altogether, even though today's Kamsky, and maybe Browne in his
> > prime, could probably win a match against many of these guys if we
> > plucked them from their own eras without giving them a chance to study
> > modern opening theory.
> > =A0 Based on criteria part objective, part subjective, this would be my
> > ranking:
>
> > Samuel Reshevsky
> > Harry Nelson Pillsbury
> > Reuben Fine
> > Louis Paulsen
> > Frank Marshall
> > Carlos Torre
> > George Henry Mackenzie
> > Isaac Kashdan
> > Jackson Showalter
>
> > =A0 I've added three players not on your list: Paulsen, Torre and
> > Kashdan. Paulsen was arguably the best player in the world for some of
> > the post-Morphy era, certainly one of the top five, though one might
> > classify him as non-American because he reached his peak after leaving
> > America and returning to Europe. Torre's major-league career was very
> > brief (1924-1926) but brilliant, and I think he would have surpassed
> > Marshall had he continued to play. Kashdan was definitely better than
> > Showalter, IMO, perhaps objectively better than Mackenzie.
> > =A0 For what it's worth, here are the 5-year peak ratings Dr. Elo gives
> > these players in his book:
>
> > Reshevsky =A0 2680
> > Pillsbury =A0 =A0 =A0 2630
> > Fine =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02660
> > Paulsen =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02550
> > Marshall =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02570
> > Torre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2560
> > Mackenzie =A0 =A02560
> > Kashdan =A0 =A0 =A0 2570
> > Showalter =A0 =A0 2470
>
> > =A0 If you're going to include Showalter, it might be advisable to
> > include such players as Mason, whom Elo rates at 2530, =A0plus Lipsch=FC=
tz
> > (2510), Napier (2500), and maybe Kupchik (2480).- Hide quoted text -
>
> I don't take a lot stock in Elo ratings when talking about pre-1950
> players myself. =A0I'm also obviously biased in regard to Showalter for
> reasons obvious to you and I.
>
> I tried to provide a condensed list of players in different eras on
> the blog poll, or I definitely would have included Mason, Lipscutz,
> and Albert Hodges. =A0I really don't know enough about Kupchik or Napier
> to include them.
>
> My top ten list would look something like this:
>
> =A01. =A0Reshevsky
> =A02. =A0Marshall
> =A03. =A0Pillsbury
> =A04. =A0Showalter
> =A05. =A0Mason
> =A06. =A0Mackenzie
> =A07. =A0Fine
> =A08. =A0Hodges
> =A09. =A0Lipschutz
> 10. Browne

You'd really put Fine so far down? In the late 1930s he was among
the top 8 players in the world, and when those top 8 all played in the
same tournament, AVRO 1938, Fine finished =3D1st-2nd with Keres. Though
unlike Reshevsky he never won the US Championship, his international
results were overall better than Reshevsky's. I know you're a
Showalter fan, but putting Fine below him just does not make sense to
me.
Marshall had too many fiascoes (e.g. lopsided match losses vs.
Tarrasch, Lasker, and Capablanca) to rank so high, IMO. For example
over his career Marshall lost to Lasker +2 -12 =3D11, and to Tarrasch by
+7 -13 =3D18. In contrast, Pillsbury played Lasker even (+5 -5 =3D4) and
was nearly even with Tarrasch (+5 -6 =3D2).
Based on best 10-year strengths, mathematician Nathan Divinsky
ranked the top Americans like this as of 1994:

1. Fischer (2nd overall, behind Kasparov)
2. Steinitz (24th)
3. Reshevsky (25th)
4. Seirawan (43rd)
5. Fine (46th)
6. Paulsen (53rd)
7. Pillsbury (62nd)
8. Marshall (66th)
9. Mackenzie (70th)
10. Mason (75th)

Some players had too small a sample for Divinsky to consider them
statistically reliable. If we take what ratings he is able to derive,
then Morphy is #1, not just for the USA but for the world (19070 vs.
Kasparov's 17940 -- NB: these are not Elo ratings). Kamsky would be
4th among Americans, about 33rd in the world, and Torre would come in
between Paulsen and Pillsbury, about #58 in the world, just behind
Nimzovitch.
I neither deride nor endorse Divinsky's rankings here; I just
present them as something of interest and relevance to this discussion.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 09:24:55
From: Sanny
Subject: Are they playing using Computer

Are they playing using Computer instead of the Chess Board???

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 17 Apr 2008 09:24:46
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 11:58=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 After Fischer and Morphy, Who Is The Next Best American Chess Player
> of All Time? And you offer a choice between Mackenzie, Pillsbury,
> Showalter, Marshall, Reshevsky, Fine, Browne and Kamsky.
>
> =A0 A difficult question. I'm going to duck part of it by sticking to my
> area of expertise, i.e. pre-1950 players, thus omitting Browne and
> Kamsky altogether, even though today's Kamsky, and maybe Browne in his
> prime, could probably win a match against many of these guys if we
> plucked them from their own eras without giving them a chance to study
> modern opening theory.
> =A0 Based on criteria part objective, part subjective, this would be my
> ranking:
>
> Samuel Reshevsky
> Harry Nelson Pillsbury
> Reuben Fine
> Louis Paulsen
> Frank Marshall
> Carlos Torre
> George Henry Mackenzie
> Isaac Kashdan
> Jackson Showalter
>
> =A0 I've added three players not on your list: Paulsen, Torre and
> Kashdan. Paulsen was arguably the best player in the world for some of
> the post-Morphy era, certainly one of the top five, though one might
> classify him as non-American because he reached his peak after leaving
> America and returning to Europe. Torre's major-league career was very
> brief (1924-1926) but brilliant, and I think he would have surpassed
> Marshall had he continued to play. Kashdan was definitely better than
> Showalter, IMO, perhaps objectively better than Mackenzie.
> =A0 For what it's worth, here are the 5-year peak ratings Dr. Elo gives
> these players in his book:
>
> Reshevsky =A0 2680
> Pillsbury =A0 =A0 =A0 2630
> Fine =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02660
> Paulsen =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02550
> Marshall =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02570
> Torre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2560
> Mackenzie =A0 =A02560
> Kashdan =A0 =A0 =A0 2570
> Showalter =A0 =A0 2470
>
> =A0 If you're going to include Showalter, it might be advisable to
> include such players as Mason, whom Elo rates at 2530, =A0plus Lipsch=FCtz=

> (2510), Napier (2500), and maybe Kupchik (2480).- Hide quoted text -
>
I don't take a lot stock in ELO ratings when talking about pre-1950
players myself. I'm also obviously biased in regard to Showalter for
reasons obvious to you and I.

I tried to provide a condensed list of players in different eras on
the blog poll, or I definitely would have included Mason, Lipscutz,
and Albert Hodges. I really don't know enough about Kupchik or Napier
to include them.

My top ten list would look something like this:

1. Reshevsky
2. Marshall
3. Pillsbury
4. Showalter
5. Mason
6. Mackenzie
7. Fine
8. Hodges
9. Lipschutz
10. Browne

Date: 17 Apr 2008 09:21:11
From:
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 11:58=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:43=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 8:58=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Head-to-head statistics, poll results, upcoming match details, and o=
ne
> > > > of their more memorable games from 2001.
>
> > > >http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=3D176
>
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Morphywww.rookhouse.com
>
> > > =A0 A very interesting, hard-fought game. If Kramnik had been like mos=
t
> > > club players I've known, he would have played it to the bitter end,
> > > requiring Anand to prove he could mate with B+N vs. bare king. What if=

> > > Vishy didn't know how?
>
> > Taylor,
>
> > I don't know if you noticed the new Poll question on the blog, but
> > which one gets your vote and how would you rate these guys in order?
>
> =A0 I take it you mean this question:
>
> =A0 After Fischer and Morphy, Who Is The Next Best American Chess Player
> of All Time? And you offer a choice between Mackenzie, Pillsbury,
> Showalter, Marshall, Reshevsky, Fine, Browne and Kamsky.
>
> =A0 A difficult question. I'm going to duck part of it by sticking to my
> area of expertise, i.e. pre-1950 players, thus omitting Browne and
> Kamsky altogether, even though today's Kamsky, and maybe Browne in his
> prime, could probably win a match against many of these guys if we
> plucked them from their own eras without giving them a chance to study
> modern opening theory.
> =A0 Based on criteria part objective, part subjective, this would be my
> ranking:
>
> Samuel Reshevsky
> Harry Nelson Pillsbury
> Reuben Fine
> Louis Paulsen
> Frank Marshall
> Carlos Torre
> George Henry Mackenzie
> Isaac Kashdan
> Jackson Showalter
>
> =A0 I've added three players not on your list: Paulsen, Torre and
> Kashdan. Paulsen was arguably the best player in the world for some of
> the post-Morphy era, certainly one of the top five, though one might
> classify him as non-American because he reached his peak after leaving
> America and returning to Europe. Torre's major-league career was very
> brief (1924-1926) but brilliant, and I think he would have surpassed
> Marshall had he continued to play. Kashdan was definitely better than
> Showalter, IMO, perhaps objectively better than Mackenzie.
> =A0 For what it's worth, here are the 5-year peak ratings Dr. Elo gives
> these players in his book:
>
> Reshevsky =A0 2680
> Pillsbury =A0 =A0 =A0 2630
> Fine =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02660
> Paulsen =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02550
> Marshall =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02570
> Torre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2560
> Mackenzie =A0 =A02560
> Kashdan =A0 =A0 =A0 2570
> Showalter =A0 =A0 2470
>
> =A0 If you're going to include Showalter, it might be advisable to
> include such players as Mason, whom Elo rates at 2530, =A0plus Lipsch=FCtz=

> (2510), Napier (2500), and maybe Kupchik (2480).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since the list already includes several emigres, I should perhaps
add one other player: William Steinitz. Steinitz became a naturalized
American citizen, and was a US resident when he and Zukertort played
the first official World Championship match in 1886. If we include
Steinitz, he'd have to rank at worst second only to Reshevsky, IMO.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 08:58:22
From:
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 10:43=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 8:58=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Head-to-head statistics, poll results, upcoming match details, and one=

> > > of their more memorable games from 2001.
>
> > >http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=3D176
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Morphywww.rookhouse.com
>
> > =A0 A very interesting, hard-fought game. If Kramnik had been like most
> > club players I've known, he would have played it to the bitter end,
> > requiring Anand to prove he could mate with B+N vs. bare king. What if
> > Vishy didn't know how?
>
> Taylor,
>
> I don't know if you noticed the new Poll question on the blog, but
> which one gets your vote and how would you rate these guys in order?

I take it you mean this question:

After Fischer and Morphy, Who Is The Next Best American Chess Player
of All Time? And you offer a choice between Mackenzie, Pillsbury,
Showalter, Marshall, Reshevsky, Fine, Browne and Kamsky.

A difficult question. I'm going to duck part of it by sticking to my
area of expertise, i.e. pre-1950 players, thus omitting Browne and
Kamsky altogether, even though today's Kamsky, and maybe Browne in his
prime, could probably win a match against many of these guys if we
plucked them from their own eras without giving them a chance to study
modern opening theory.
Based on criteria part objective, part subjective, this would be my
ranking:

Samuel Reshevsky
Harry Nelson Pillsbury
Reuben Fine
Louis Paulsen
Frank Marshall
Carlos Torre
George Henry Mackenzie
Isaac Kashdan
Jackson Showalter

I've added three players not on your list: Paulsen, Torre and
Kashdan. Paulsen was arguably the best player in the world for some of
the post-Morphy era, certainly one of the top five, though one might
classify him as non-American because he reached his peak after leaving
America and returning to Europe. Torre's major-league career was very
brief (1924-1926) but brilliant, and I think he would have surpassed
Marshall had he continued to play. Kashdan was definitely better than
Showalter, IMO, perhaps objectively better than Mackenzie.
For what it's worth, here are the 5-year peak ratings Dr. Elo gives
these players in his book:

Reshevsky 2680
Pillsbury 2630
Fine 2660
Paulsen 2550
Marshall 2570
Torre 2560
Mackenzie 2560
Kashdan 2570
Showalter 2470

If you're going to include Showalter, it might be advisable to
include such players as Mason, whom Elo rates at 2530, plus Lipsch=FCtz
(2510), Napier (2500), and maybe Kupchik (2480).

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:43:23
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:58=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Head-to-head statistics, poll results, upcoming match details, and one
> > of their more memorable games from 2001.
>
> >http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=3D176
>
> > Thanks,
> > Morphywww.rookhouse.com
>
> =A0 A very interesting, hard-fought game. If Kramnik had been like most
> club players I've known, he would have played it to the bitter end,
> requiring Anand to prove he could mate with B+N vs. bare king. What if
> Vishy didn't know how?

Taylor,

I don't know if you noticed the new Poll question on the blog, but
which one gets your vote and how would you rate these guys in order?

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:37:01
From:
Subject: Re: Final Kramnik-Anand Preview

On Apr 17, 8:58=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> Head-to-head statistics, poll results, upcoming match details, and one
> of their more memorable games from 2001.
>
> http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=3D176
>
> Thanks,
> Morphywww.rookhouse.com

A very interesting, hard-fought game. If Kramnik had been like most
club players I've known, he would have played it to the bitter end,
requiring Anand to prove he could mate with B+N vs. bare king. What if
Vishy didn't know how?