Main Date: 08 Jan 2009 10:23:14 From: samsloan Subject: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world championship match games, their score was dead even. Similarly, although Anand is now the undisputed World Champion, Topalov is rated a bit higher and teenager Magnus Carlsen is catching up fast. By contract, Fischer was 100 points, or half a class, better than Spassky. By that standard, the distance between the best player in the world and the number two player in the world, Fischer was clearly the greatest player ever. Another factor is that nowadays the top players all use computerized databases with millions of games to prepare for their opponents and they train with computer chess programs such as Rybka. These programs come up with moves and ideas that no human had ever thought of before. It is said that the current world champion, Anand, plays like a computer because he trains extensively with a computer. However, the question remains unanswered: If Bobby Fischer were alive today and playing at his peak, would he be able to defeat players like Kasparov and Anand? The 1992 rematch with Spassky proved that the Fischer of 1992 was not the Fischer of 1972. Although Fischer stated that he =93played great chess=94 in the second match, that was only partially true. Fischer's best play came when he was trying to rescue himself from a bad or nearly losing position. In 1992, Fischer found himself in the same situation that he had been in the last games of the 1972 match, where he had several bad positions and at one point Shelby Lyman announced on his TV Show =93Fischer has lost the game=94. It turned out that Fischer did not lose. He found a resource that saved the draw. The advent of computer databases and computer playing chess programs does not really answer the question. Having all these computers helps, but one still needs a man to actually play the game. Also, getting the opponent out of the book and into a situation the opponent could not have prepared for is not that difficult. A situation that occurred in Iceland while Fischer was living there as a Fugitive from the George Bush Version of Justice occurred during a game played on an Icelandic Television Broadcast on September 12, 2006. The game went: Thorfinsson, Bragi - Gunnarson, Arnar [C50] Icelandic TV, 09.12.2006 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.d3 Be6 5.Bxe6 fxe6 6.c3 Qd7 7.0-0 Nf6 8.b4 a6 9.a4 Be7 10.Na3 0-0 11.Nc4 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Na5 d5 14.Bg5 Bd6 15.Re1 h6 16.Bh4 Nxa5 17.bxa5 b4 18.Qb3 Qb5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.c4 dxc4 21.dxc4 Qc6 22.Nh4 Kh7 23.c5 Be7 24.Qxb4 Bxc5 25.Qb3 Bd4 26.Rac1 Qd7 27.Qa3 Qd6 28.Qf3 Rxa5 29.Qh5 Rg8 30.Qf7+? Rg7 31.Qxf6 Ra2? 32.Rf1 Re2 33.Qf3 Rd2 34.Qf6 Re2 35.h3? Rxe4 36.Rc6. Qxc6, 37.Nf5 Here, Black blundered and lost. As this game was played live on TV with grandmaster commentators, everybody was surprised when the phone rang. A mysterious voice was on the line, which the grandmasters recognized. It was Bobby Fischer. Fischer had seen a fantastic combination, that all the grandmasters on the spot had missed. It went: 37...Rxg2+! 38.Kh1 (White cannot retake because of 38.Kxg2 Rg4++ 39.Kh2 Qg2 mate) 38...Rh4!! 39.Qf7+ Rg7+ (discovered check!) 40.f3 Rxh3 mate. The question is: Would any of today's top grandmasters, would Kasparov, Anand, Topalov or Carlsen, have seen this fantastic combination? If not, could they really have hoped to beat Fischer in his prime? Sam Sloan   Date: 17 Jan 2009 08:49:27 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 12:01=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 2:42=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 11:27=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 16, 1:58=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wro= te: > > > > > On Jan 16, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> w= rote: > > > > > > On Jan 16, 12:40=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]= > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 9:17=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]= > wrote: > > > > > > > > =A0 It certainly was not about astrology! > > > > > > > "Indeed," he replied laconically. =A0From the exclamation mark = I suspect > > > > > > you caught my implied smiley. =A0:) > > > > > > > Still, it is interesting to see what people say about Fischer f= rom > > > > > > completely disconnected areas of thought. =A0Here is one excerp= t I ran > > > > > > across in a long thread that appeared at the above link... > > > > > > > =3D=3D > > > > > > "His Vedic chart has some interesting things- > > > > > > Mars is exalted and angular in the 7th house of open enemies/ > > > > > > partnerships giving a Ruchaka yoga. Ruchaka yoga (Mars angular = in its > > > > > > own sign or exaltation) is described as powerful and arrogant, = easily > > > > > > defeating enemies. The author K S Charak describes it as 'ever = intent > > > > > > on combat, annihilator of his opponents'. I think this is where= his > > > > > > competitive, argumentative, demanding, willful often hateful > > > > > > tendencies come from, for the most part. > > > > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood are others with t= his > > > > > > yoga. All of these, including Fischer, also have this yoga agai= n from > > > > > > either the Sun or Moon's sign, which makes it that much more po= tent. > > > > > > > Moon is in combative, competitive Aries in the 10th house. Moon= is > > > > > > also under the aspect of its exalted lord Mars, increasing the = Mars > > > > > > like nature of his emotional mind and nature..." > > > > > > =3D=3D > > > > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood all achieved grea= tness > > > > > > of one kind or another... =A0What do ya think? =A0Garbage, or w= eird food > > > > > > for thought. :) > > > > > > =A0 Garbage, he replied laconically. If these four all have "the = same > > > > > yoga" (whatever that means), there must be thousands of others al= so, > > > > > perhaps millions down through history. Has any statistically > > > > > significant, random sample of them been examined? Have all, or ev= en > > > > > most, of that population "achieved greatness"? I rather doubt it.= Hand- > > > > > picking four prominent people out of a large group is hardly any = basis > > > > > for general conclusions, and involves a major, inherent bias. > > > > > =A0 It's also very easy to make up some ad hoc mumbo-jumbo that > > > > > supposedly explains the characteristics of a world-famous persona= lity, > > > > > when you already know who he is. Let these charlatans be subjecte= d to > > > > > blind testing, and they'll fall flat on their faces. > > > > > =A0 Astrology deserves no more credence than the ancient Roman pr= actice > > > > > of reading goat entrails. The sooner humanity abandons such > > > > > superstitious nonsense, the better. > > > > > On the face of it, I agree. =A0However there are other factors here= . > > > > Let me back up and relate my links to the original topic of this > > > > thread. > > > > > One way to evaluate greatness is to rely on numerical measure, comp= are > > > > prioritized lists of results, and relate authoritative quotations > > > > about one's subject. =A0You could call this a "scientific method." = =A0I > > > > maintain that there is a certain dry, lifelessness to this approach > > > > that would fail to satisfy the novelist, the playwright, or the > > > > general journalist. =A0What might augment the impression of greatne= ss? > > > > > First, greatness is not a solitary attribute of an individual. =A0I= t is > > > > rather a sharing between one person of notable characteristics and = the > > > > multiple perceptions that many other "fans" have of him/her. > > > > > Second, Bobby Fischer did have significant impact on many people of > > > > the world -- not just chess players. > > > > > Like you, I may not agree with the techniques of Vedic astrology, b= ut > > > > what these people think about Bobby IS relevant in the sense I have > > > > described above. =A0Bobby has made an impact on the lives of a numb= er of > > > > the participants in this Vedic astrology thread. =A0This is just on= e > > > > example. =A0How about another... > > > > > When one visits:http://www.godslastcall.org/aninterestinggraphic > > > > appears. =A0After a few seconds it is replaced by an introduction p= age. > > > > It takes quite a bit of digging to come up with the following > > > > quotation: > > > > > =3D=3D > > > > "...chess is useful for the purpose of illustrating the "Great > > > > Controversy," a book for our time which exposes the carnal and futi= le > > > > efforts of man to destroy the truth of God. I found the following > > > > statement by chess master Emanuel Lasker clearly proves my point: > > > > Notice: On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. T= he > > > > creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the mercil= ess > > > > fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. I foun= d > > > > it fascinating that this statement was selected by the greatest che= ss > > > > player of all time, Robert (Bobby) J. Fischer, on the page opposite > > > > his preface to his 384 page book, "Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable > > > > Games," published in 1969." > > > > >http://www.godslastcall.org/final-days.html > > > > =3D=3D > > > > > We need not agree with the the general orientation or doctrine of t= he > > > > website or this particular commentator to recognize that Fischer ha= s > > > > once again had a great impact on someone's life. =A0Here this autho= r's > > > > views about Fischer are disseminated to a completely different > > > > audience. > > > > > The greatness of Fischer that is perceived by the general public ca= n > > > > be influenced from many inputs... > > > > > Cordially, > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker > > > > =A0 I thought you were asking for opinions on the validity of astrolo= gy > > > in general, or this particular approach to it. > > > I plead guilty to an indirect approach. =A0:) > > > > =A0 As for Fischer being known to, or even influencing, people with > > > little or no interest in chess, that does not surprise me. I am > > > pleased to see that in the example you cite, the influence appears to > > > be positive, when so much of his later life was so negative. > > > I do not know the literature. =A0Has anyone attacked the problem of how > > Fischer has influenced world culture? =A0Perhaps it is a project for th= e > > future. > > > > =A0 On the other hand, I recall giving a lecture to several dozen che= ss- > > > playing school children, and several of their parents, around 1990. I > > > asked "How many of you have ever heard of Bobby Fischer?" Not a singl= e > > > hand went up. > > > Things are changing; Fischer appears to be increasingly referenced in > > the media both as "great" and for other of his idiosyncratic > > characteristics. =A0 > > =A0 By 1990 he had faded into relative obscurity, and might well have > stayed there if he had not resurfaced into the public eye by playing > Spassky in 1992. Plus the lecture I mentioned was given in St. > Charles, Missouri, not exactly a major center of chess activity and > interest. > > > An example: > > > =3D=3D > > "Virtuoso musicians tend to be unapproachable -- some seem to live > > within the velvet ropes of celebrity, others have all the social > > graces of the late chess great Bobby Fischer, and even the nice ones > > just inhabit a different, more rarified realm than most of us." > > >http://blog.oregonlive.com/classicalmusic/2008/02/a_mensch_who_thunde... > > =3D=3D > > > Perhaps one day, long after this civilization has collapsed, Fischer > > will be revered as a minor demigod in a new mythology by our mutated > > descendants. =A0:) > > =A0 I recall a short story (the title and author elude my memory) about > a future archaeologist exploring the ruins of what, unbeknownst to > him, had been Washington DC. He commented on the statues and monuments > dedicated to the various ancient gods, such as ASHING, FERSO, and > COLN. Maybe someday there will be a statue of ISCHE somewhere. Out of curiosity, I googled around the Internet attempting to find references to any statues of Bobby Fischer. I could find nothing. Anyone know of such a statue? Judging from this thread he needs a memorial. Today is an anniversary. "Robert James "Bobby" Fischer (March 9, 1943 =96 January 17, 2008) was an American-born Icelandic chess Grandmaster, and the eleventh World Chess Champion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby= _Fischer Rest in Peace Bobby. Rev. J.D. Walker   Date: 16 Jan 2009 12:01:10 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 2:42=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 11:27=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 1:58=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 16, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wro= te: > > > > > On Jan 16, 12:40=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 16, 9:17=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> = wrote: > > > > > > > =A0 It certainly was not about astrology! > > > > > > "Indeed," he replied laconically. =A0From the exclamation mark I = suspect > > > > > you caught my implied smiley. =A0:) > > > > > > Still, it is interesting to see what people say about Fischer fro= m > > > > > completely disconnected areas of thought. =A0Here is one excerpt = I ran > > > > > across in a long thread that appeared at the above link... > > > > > > =3D=3D > > > > > "His Vedic chart has some interesting things- > > > > > Mars is exalted and angular in the 7th house of open enemies/ > > > > > partnerships giving a Ruchaka yoga. Ruchaka yoga (Mars angular in= its > > > > > own sign or exaltation) is described as powerful and arrogant, ea= sily > > > > > defeating enemies. The author K S Charak describes it as 'ever in= tent > > > > > on combat, annihilator of his opponents'. I think this is where h= is > > > > > competitive, argumentative, demanding, willful often hateful > > > > > tendencies come from, for the most part. > > > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood are others with thi= s > > > > > yoga. All of these, including Fischer, also have this yoga again = from > > > > > either the Sun or Moon's sign, which makes it that much more pote= nt. > > > > > > Moon is in combative, competitive Aries in the 10th house. Moon i= s > > > > > also under the aspect of its exalted lord Mars, increasing the Ma= rs > > > > > like nature of his emotional mind and nature..." > > > > > =3D=3D > > > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood all achieved greatn= ess > > > > > of one kind or another... =A0What do ya think? =A0Garbage, or wei= rd food > > > > > for thought. :) > > > > > =A0 Garbage, he replied laconically. If these four all have "the sa= me > > > > yoga" (whatever that means), there must be thousands of others also= , > > > > perhaps millions down through history. Has any statistically > > > > significant, random sample of them been examined? Have all, or even > > > > most, of that population "achieved greatness"? I rather doubt it. H= and- > > > > picking four prominent people out of a large group is hardly any ba= sis > > > > for general conclusions, and involves a major, inherent bias. > > > > =A0 It's also very easy to make up some ad hoc mumbo-jumbo that > > > > supposedly explains the characteristics of a world-famous personali= ty, > > > > when you already know who he is. Let these charlatans be subjected = to > > > > blind testing, and they'll fall flat on their faces. > > > > =A0 Astrology deserves no more credence than the ancient Roman prac= tice > > > > of reading goat entrails. The sooner humanity abandons such > > > > superstitious nonsense, the better. > > > > On the face of it, I agree. =A0However there are other factors here. > > > Let me back up and relate my links to the original topic of this > > > thread. > > > > One way to evaluate greatness is to rely on numerical measure, compar= e > > > prioritized lists of results, and relate authoritative quotations > > > about one's subject. =A0You could call this a "scientific method." = =A0I > > > maintain that there is a certain dry, lifelessness to this approach > > > that would fail to satisfy the novelist, the playwright, or the > > > general journalist. =A0What might augment the impression of greatness= ? > > > > First, greatness is not a solitary attribute of an individual. =A0It = is > > > rather a sharing between one person of notable characteristics and th= e > > > multiple perceptions that many other "fans" have of him/her. > > > > Second, Bobby Fischer did have significant impact on many people of > > > the world -- not just chess players. > > > > Like you, I may not agree with the techniques of Vedic astrology, but > > > what these people think about Bobby IS relevant in the sense I have > > > described above. =A0Bobby has made an impact on the lives of a number= of > > > the participants in this Vedic astrology thread. =A0This is just one > > > example. =A0How about another... > > > > When one visits:http://www.godslastcall.org/aninterestinggraphic > > > appears. =A0After a few seconds it is replaced by an introduction pag= e. > > > It takes quite a bit of digging to come up with the following > > > quotation: > > > > =3D=3D > > > "...chess is useful for the purpose of illustrating the "Great > > > Controversy," a book for our time which exposes the carnal and futile > > > efforts of man to destroy the truth of God. I found the following > > > statement by chess master Emanuel Lasker clearly proves my point: > > > Notice: On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The > > > creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciles= s > > > fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. I found > > > it fascinating that this statement was selected by the greatest chess > > > player of all time, Robert (Bobby) J. Fischer, on the page opposite > > > his preface to his 384 page book, "Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable > > > Games," published in 1969." > > > >http://www.godslastcall.org/final-days.html > > > =3D=3D > > > > We need not agree with the the general orientation or doctrine of the > > > website or this particular commentator to recognize that Fischer has > > > once again had a great impact on someone's life. =A0Here this author'= s > > > views about Fischer are disseminated to a completely different > > > audience. > > > > The greatness of Fischer that is perceived by the general public can > > > be influenced from many inputs... > > > > Cordially, > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker > > > =A0 I thought you were asking for opinions on the validity of astrology > > in general, or this particular approach to it. > > I plead guilty to an indirect approach. =A0:) > > > =A0 As for Fischer being known to, or even influencing, people with > > little or no interest in chess, that does not surprise me. I am > > pleased to see that in the example you cite, the influence appears to > > be positive, when so much of his later life was so negative. > > I do not know the literature. =A0Has anyone attacked the problem of how > Fischer has influenced world culture? =A0Perhaps it is a project for the > future. > > > =A0 On the other hand, I recall giving a lecture to several dozen chess= - > > playing school children, and several of their parents, around 1990. I > > asked "How many of you have ever heard of Bobby Fischer?" Not a single > > hand went up. > > Things are changing; Fischer appears to be increasingly referenced in > the media both as "great" and for other of his idiosyncratic > characteristics. =A0 By 1990 he had faded into relative obscurity, and might well have stayed there if he had not resurfaced into the public eye by playing Spassky in 1992. Plus the lecture I mentioned was given in St. Charles, Missouri, not exactly a major center of chess activity and interest. > An example: > > =3D=3D > "Virtuoso musicians tend to be unapproachable -- some seem to live > within the velvet ropes of celebrity, others have all the social > graces of the late chess great Bobby Fischer, and even the nice ones > just inhabit a different, more rarified realm than most of us." > > http://blog.oregonlive.com/classicalmusic/2008/02/a_mensch_who_thunde... > =3D=3D > > Perhaps one day, long after this civilization has collapsed, Fischer > will be revered as a minor demigod in a new mythology by our mutated > descendants. =A0:) I recall a short story (the title and author elude my memory) about a future archaeologist exploring the ruins of what, unbeknownst to him, had been Washington DC. He commented on the statues and monuments dedicated to the various ancient gods, such as ASHING, FERSO, and COLN. Maybe someday there will be a statue of ISCHE somewhere.   Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:42:18 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 11:27=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 1:58=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 16, 12:40=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 9:17=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wr= ote: > > > > > > =A0 It certainly was not about astrology! > > > > > "Indeed," he replied laconically. =A0From the exclamation mark I su= spect > > > > you caught my implied smiley. =A0:) > > > > > Still, it is interesting to see what people say about Fischer from > > > > completely disconnected areas of thought. =A0Here is one excerpt I = ran > > > > across in a long thread that appeared at the above link... > > > > > =3D=3D > > > > "His Vedic chart has some interesting things- > > > > Mars is exalted and angular in the 7th house of open enemies/ > > > > partnerships giving a Ruchaka yoga. Ruchaka yoga (Mars angular in i= ts > > > > own sign or exaltation) is described as powerful and arrogant, easi= ly > > > > defeating enemies. The author K S Charak describes it as 'ever inte= nt > > > > on combat, annihilator of his opponents'. I think this is where his > > > > competitive, argumentative, demanding, willful often hateful > > > > tendencies come from, for the most part. > > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood are others with this > > > > yoga. All of these, including Fischer, also have this yoga again fr= om > > > > either the Sun or Moon's sign, which makes it that much more potent= . > > > > > Moon is in combative, competitive Aries in the 10th house. Moon is > > > > also under the aspect of its exalted lord Mars, increasing the Mars > > > > like nature of his emotional mind and nature..." > > > > =3D=3D > > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood all achieved greatnes= s > > > > of one kind or another... =A0What do ya think? =A0Garbage, or weird= food > > > > for thought. :) > > > > =A0 Garbage, he replied laconically. If these four all have "the same > > > yoga" (whatever that means), there must be thousands of others also, > > > perhaps millions down through history. Has any statistically > > > significant, random sample of them been examined? Have all, or even > > > most, of that population "achieved greatness"? I rather doubt it. Han= d- > > > picking four prominent people out of a large group is hardly any basi= s > > > for general conclusions, and involves a major, inherent bias. > > > =A0 It's also very easy to make up some ad hoc mumbo-jumbo that > > > supposedly explains the characteristics of a world-famous personality= , > > > when you already know who he is. Let these charlatans be subjected to > > > blind testing, and they'll fall flat on their faces. > > > =A0 Astrology deserves no more credence than the ancient Roman practi= ce > > > of reading goat entrails. The sooner humanity abandons such > > > superstitious nonsense, the better. > > > On the face of it, I agree. =A0However there are other factors here. > > Let me back up and relate my links to the original topic of this > > thread. > > > One way to evaluate greatness is to rely on numerical measure, compare > > prioritized lists of results, and relate authoritative quotations > > about one's subject. =A0You could call this a "scientific method." =A0I > > maintain that there is a certain dry, lifelessness to this approach > > that would fail to satisfy the novelist, the playwright, or the > > general journalist. =A0What might augment the impression of greatness? > > > First, greatness is not a solitary attribute of an individual. =A0It is > > rather a sharing between one person of notable characteristics and the > > multiple perceptions that many other "fans" have of him/her. > > > Second, Bobby Fischer did have significant impact on many people of > > the world -- not just chess players. > > > Like you, I may not agree with the techniques of Vedic astrology, but > > what these people think about Bobby IS relevant in the sense I have > > described above. =A0Bobby has made an impact on the lives of a number o= f > > the participants in this Vedic astrology thread. =A0This is just one > > example. =A0How about another... > > > When one visits:http://www.godslastcall.org/aninteresting graphic > > appears. =A0After a few seconds it is replaced by an introduction page. > > It takes quite a bit of digging to come up with the following > > quotation: > > > =3D=3D > > "...chess is useful for the purpose of illustrating the "Great > > Controversy," a book for our time which exposes the carnal and futile > > efforts of man to destroy the truth of God. I found the following > > statement by chess master Emanuel Lasker clearly proves my point: > > Notice: On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The > > creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless > > fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. I found > > it fascinating that this statement was selected by the greatest chess > > player of all time, Robert (Bobby) J. Fischer, on the page opposite > > his preface to his 384 page book, "Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable > > Games," published in 1969." > > >http://www.godslastcall.org/final-days.html > > =3D=3D > > > We need not agree with the the general orientation or doctrine of the > > website or this particular commentator to recognize that Fischer has > > once again had a great impact on someone's life. =A0Here this author's > > views about Fischer are disseminated to a completely different > > audience. > > > The greatness of Fischer that is perceived by the general public can > > be influenced from many inputs... > > > Cordially, > > > Rev. J.D. Walker > > =A0 I thought you were asking for opinions on the validity of astrology > in general, or this particular approach to it. I plead guilty to an indirect approach. :) > =A0 As for Fischer being known to, or even influencing, people with > little or no interest in chess, that does not surprise me. I am > pleased to see that in the example you cite, the influence appears to > be positive, when so much of his later life was so negative. I do not know the literature. Has anyone attacked the problem of how Fischer has influenced world culture? Perhaps it is a project for the future. > =A0 On the other hand, I recall giving a lecture to several dozen chess- > playing school children, and several of their parents, around 1990. I > asked "How many of you have ever heard of Bobby Fischer?" Not a single > hand went up. Things are changing; Fischer appears to be increasingly referenced in the media both as "great" and for other of his idiosyncratic characteristics. An example: =3D=3D "Virtuoso musicians tend to be unapproachable -- some seem to live within the velvet ropes of celebrity, others have all the social graces of the late chess great Bobby Fischer, and even the nice ones just inhabit a different, more rarified realm than most of us." http://blog.oregonlive.com/classicalmusic/2008/02/a_mensch_who_thunders_is_= still.html =3D=3D Perhaps one day, long after this civilization has collapsed, Fischer will be revered as a minor demigod in a new mythology by our mutated descendants. :) Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker   Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:27:02 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 1:58=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 12:40=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 9:17=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrot= e: > > > > > =A0 It certainly was not about astrology! > > > > "Indeed," he replied laconically. =A0From the exclamation mark I susp= ect > > > you caught my implied smiley. =A0:) > > > > Still, it is interesting to see what people say about Fischer from > > > completely disconnected areas of thought. =A0Here is one excerpt I ra= n > > > across in a long thread that appeared at the above link... > > > > =3D=3D > > > "His Vedic chart has some interesting things- > > > Mars is exalted and angular in the 7th house of open enemies/ > > > partnerships giving a Ruchaka yoga. Ruchaka yoga (Mars angular in its > > > own sign or exaltation) is described as powerful and arrogant, easily > > > defeating enemies. The author K S Charak describes it as 'ever intent > > > on combat, annihilator of his opponents'. I think this is where his > > > competitive, argumentative, demanding, willful often hateful > > > tendencies come from, for the most part. > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood are others with this > > > yoga. All of these, including Fischer, also have this yoga again from > > > either the Sun or Moon's sign, which makes it that much more potent. > > > > Moon is in combative, competitive Aries in the 10th house. Moon is > > > also under the aspect of its exalted lord Mars, increasing the Mars > > > like nature of his emotional mind and nature..." > > > =3D=3D > > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood all achieved greatness > > > of one kind or another... =A0What do ya think? =A0Garbage, or weird f= ood > > > for thought. :) > > > =A0 Garbage, he replied laconically. If these four all have "the same > > yoga" (whatever that means), there must be thousands of others also, > > perhaps millions down through history. Has any statistically > > significant, random sample of them been examined? Have all, or even > > most, of that population "achieved greatness"? I rather doubt it. Hand- > > picking four prominent people out of a large group is hardly any basis > > for general conclusions, and involves a major, inherent bias. > > =A0 It's also very easy to make up some ad hoc mumbo-jumbo that > > supposedly explains the characteristics of a world-famous personality, > > when you already know who he is. Let these charlatans be subjected to > > blind testing, and they'll fall flat on their faces. > > =A0 Astrology deserves no more credence than the ancient Roman practice > > of reading goat entrails. The sooner humanity abandons such > > superstitious nonsense, the better. > > On the face of it, I agree. =A0However there are other factors here. > Let me back up and relate my links to the original topic of this > thread. > > One way to evaluate greatness is to rely on numerical measure, compare > prioritized lists of results, and relate authoritative quotations > about one's subject. =A0You could call this a "scientific method." =A0I > maintain that there is a certain dry, lifelessness to this approach > that would fail to satisfy the novelist, the playwright, or the > general journalist. =A0What might augment the impression of greatness? > > First, greatness is not a solitary attribute of an individual. =A0It is > rather a sharing between one person of notable characteristics and the > multiple perceptions that many other "fans" have of him/her. > > Second, Bobby Fischer did have significant impact on many people of > the world -- not just chess players. > > Like you, I may not agree with the techniques of Vedic astrology, but > what these people think about Bobby IS relevant in the sense I have > described above. =A0Bobby has made an impact on the lives of a number of > the participants in this Vedic astrology thread. =A0This is just one > example. =A0How about another... > > When one visits:http://www.godslastcall.org/an interesting graphic > appears. =A0After a few seconds it is replaced by an introduction page. > It takes quite a bit of digging to come up with the following > quotation: > > =3D=3D > "...chess is useful for the purpose of illustrating the "Great > Controversy," a book for our time which exposes the carnal and futile > efforts of man to destroy the truth of God. I found the following > statement by chess master Emanuel Lasker clearly proves my point: > Notice: On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The > creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless > fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. I found > it fascinating that this statement was selected by the greatest chess > player of all time, Robert (Bobby) J. Fischer, on the page opposite > his preface to his 384 page book, "Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable > Games," published in 1969." > > http://www.godslastcall.org/final-days.html > =3D=3D > > We need not agree with the the general orientation or doctrine of the > website or this particular commentator to recognize that Fischer has > once again had a great impact on someone's life. =A0Here this author's > views about Fischer are disseminated to a completely different > audience. > > The greatness of Fischer that is perceived by the general public can > be influenced from many inputs... > > Cordially, > > Rev. J.D. Walker I thought you were asking for opinions on the validity of astrology in general, or this particular approach to it. As for Fischer being known to, or even influencing, people with little or no interest in chess, that does not surprise me. I am pleased to see that in the example you cite, the influence appears to be positive, when so much of his later life was so negative. On the other hand, I recall giving a lecture to several dozen chess- playing school children, and several of their parents, around 1990. I asked "How many of you have ever heard of Bobby Fischer?" Not a single hand went up.   Date: 16 Jan 2009 10:58:38 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 12:40=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 9:17=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > =A0 It certainly was not about astrology! > > > "Indeed," he replied laconically. =A0From the exclamation mark I suspec= t > > you caught my implied smiley. =A0:) > > > Still, it is interesting to see what people say about Fischer from > > completely disconnected areas of thought. =A0Here is one excerpt I ran > > across in a long thread that appeared at the above link... > > > =3D=3D > > "His Vedic chart has some interesting things- > > Mars is exalted and angular in the 7th house of open enemies/ > > partnerships giving a Ruchaka yoga. Ruchaka yoga (Mars angular in its > > own sign or exaltation) is described as powerful and arrogant, easily > > defeating enemies. The author K S Charak describes it as 'ever intent > > on combat, annihilator of his opponents'. I think this is where his > > competitive, argumentative, demanding, willful often hateful > > tendencies come from, for the most part. > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood are others with this > > yoga. All of these, including Fischer, also have this yoga again from > > either the Sun or Moon's sign, which makes it that much more potent. > > > Moon is in combative, competitive Aries in the 10th house. Moon is > > also under the aspect of its exalted lord Mars, increasing the Mars > > like nature of his emotional mind and nature..." > > =3D=3D > > > Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood all achieved greatness > > of one kind or another... =A0What do ya think? =A0Garbage, or weird foo= d > > for thought. :) > > =A0 Garbage, he replied laconically. If these four all have "the same > yoga" (whatever that means), there must be thousands of others also, > perhaps millions down through history. Has any statistically > significant, random sample of them been examined? Have all, or even > most, of that population "achieved greatness"? I rather doubt it. Hand- > picking four prominent people out of a large group is hardly any basis > for general conclusions, and involves a major, inherent bias. > =A0 It's also very easy to make up some ad hoc mumbo-jumbo that > supposedly explains the characteristics of a world-famous personality, > when you already know who he is. Let these charlatans be subjected to > blind testing, and they'll fall flat on their faces. > =A0 Astrology deserves no more credence than the ancient Roman practice > of reading goat entrails. The sooner humanity abandons such > superstitious nonsense, the better. On the face of it, I agree. However there are other factors here. Let me back up and relate my links to the original topic of this thread. One way to evaluate greatness is to rely on numerical measure, compare prioritized lists of results, and relate authoritative quotations about one's subject. You could call this a "scientific method." I maintain that there is a certain dry, lifelessness to this approach that would fail to satisfy the novelist, the playwright, or the general journalist. What might augment the impression of greatness? First, greatness is not a solitary attribute of an individual. It is rather a sharing between one person of notable characteristics and the multiple perceptions that many other "fans" have of him/her. Second, Bobby Fischer did have significant impact on many people of the world -- not just chess players. Like you, I may not agree with the techniques of Vedic astrology, but what these people think about Bobby IS relevant in the sense I have described above. Bobby has made an impact on the lives of a number of the participants in this Vedic astrology thread. This is just one example. How about another... When one visits: http://www.godslastcall.org/ an interesting graphic appears. After a few seconds it is replaced by an introduction page. It takes quite a bit of digging to come up with the following quotation: =3D=3D "...chess is useful for the purpose of illustrating the "Great Controversy," a book for our time which exposes the carnal and futile efforts of man to destroy the truth of God. I found the following statement by chess master Emanuel Lasker clearly proves my point: Notice: On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. I found it fascinating that this statement was selected by the greatest chess player of all time, Robert (Bobby) J. Fischer, on the page opposite his preface to his 384 page book, "Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games," published in 1969." http://www.godslastcall.org/final-days.html =3D=3D We need not agree with the the general orientation or doctrine of the website or this particular commentator to recognize that Fischer has once again had a great impact on someone's life. Here this author's views about Fischer are disseminated to a completely different audience. The greatness of Fischer that is perceived by the general public can be influenced from many inputs... Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker   Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:40:12 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 9:17=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 12:00=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 7:49=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 14, 2:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Here again, you ignore citations you ask for; and make idiotic > > > > commentary, which Neil Brennan [[no friend of mine] could correct y= ou > > > > upon this subject of loan words, their precedents, etc. > > > > He could, but why would he, since Mr. Kingston appears to be correct, > > > and Mr. Innes appears to be, to put it kindly, living up to the > > > standards he normally shows here on the newsgroup. > > > What was this thread originally about? > > >http://www.astrodatabank.com/nm/fischerbobby.htm > > =A0 It certainly was not about astrology! "Indeed," he replied laconically. From the exclamation mark I suspect you caught my implied smiley. :) Still, it is interesting to see what people say about Fischer from completely disconnected areas of thought. Here is one excerpt I ran across in a long thread that appeared at the above link... =3D=3D "His Vedic chart has some interesting things- Mars is exalted and angular in the 7th house of open enemies/ partnerships giving a Ruchaka yoga. Ruchaka yoga (Mars angular in its own sign or exaltation) is described as powerful and arrogant, easily defeating enemies. The author K S Charak describes it as 'ever intent on combat, annihilator of his opponents'. I think this is where his competitive, argumentative, demanding, willful often hateful tendencies come from, for the most part. Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood are others with this yoga. All of these, including Fischer, also have this yoga again from either the Sun or Moon's sign, which makes it that much more potent. Moon is in combative, competitive Aries in the 10th house. Moon is also under the aspect of its exalted lord Mars, increasing the Mars like nature of his emotional mind and nature..." =3D=3D Muhammed Ali, Adolf Hitler and Clint Eastwood all achieved greatness of one kind or another... What do ya think? Garbage, or weird food for thought. :) Rev. J.D. Walker   Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:17:21 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 12:00=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 16, 7:49=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 2:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Here again, you ignore citations you ask for; and make idiotic > > > commentary, which Neil Brennan [[no friend of mine] could correct you > > > upon this subject of loan words, their precedents, etc. > > > He could, but why would he, since Mr. Kingston appears to be correct, > > and Mr. Innes appears to be, to put it kindly, living up to the > > standards he normally shows here on the newsgroup. > > What was this thread originally about? > > http://www.astrodatabank.com/nm/fischerbobby.htm It certainly was not about astrology!   Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:00:18 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 16, 7:49=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 14, 2:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Here again, you ignore citations you ask for; and make idiotic > > commentary, which Neil Brennan [[no friend of mine] could correct you > > upon this subject of loan words, their precedents, etc. > > He could, but why would he, since Mr. Kingston appears to be correct, > and Mr. Innes appears to be, to put it kindly, living up to the > standards he normally shows here on the newsgroup. What was this thread originally about? http://www.astrodatabank.com/nm/fischerbobby.htm     Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:23:40 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Lovely little ditties On Jan 21, 9:47=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 21, 11:58=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 4:43=A0pm, madams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The Historian wrote: > > > > . > > > > > I suspect P Innes' dislike for Gilbert and Sullivan stems from both > > > > class prejudice > > > > Oh! - I don't think this can be so.. > > > > >- it was too highbrow for him - > > > > Phil's way out from the narrow, suspicious, tin-mining/peasant > > > fisher-folk community & towards the heights of gutter-filth 'journali= sm' > > > was as one might deduce - via some oxbridge/type scholarship escape > > > clause.. > > What lovely fantasies people have about others. The tin mining/ > peasants and fisher-folk would think G&S orientation a bit poofy. Or a > lot poofy. What is so hard to understand about ordinary people > thinking camp Victorians a 'luxury' they can do without? > > > > Hard as it may be for you to fathom Neil, & Mr. Parr btw (another g &= s > > > afficiando when not attending to his natzi boots & horsewhip) rabid > > > aversion to crass frith & froth ala g&s & no need to start on the > > > lloyd/webber oeuvre - cats [meeow meeow], the deck-chair monolith & f= rom > > > memoreeze-eeze-eeze - the not so 'innelectual - 'chess'. Reaction to > > > this crass crapola of quintessential & successful entertainment of th= e > > > British mob speaks volumes to the IQ of dolly partons' tits, the suck= ing > > > on of which is faraway from the mind of a Gayden, more intent on tryi= ng > > > on his new pink tights & playing floofies with his feather-boa.. > > > My reference to G & S being highbrow was a slam on two levels, playing > > off both the perception of G & S being 'highbrow' in the the US and > > other countries, and G & S's reputation in the UK, which is > > considerably lower. > > Very considerably lower. Which isn't to say that only twits like 'em > these days, such as never heard Captain Beefheart. > > > Anyway, back to my original point. Mr. Innes claimed Gilbert and > > Sullivan are "no longer celebrated in performance." > > Did I? > > > As Bradley pointed > > out in his 2005 book, in each of the last four decades at least one > > Gilbert and Sullivan opera has been among the top five most frequently > > performed musical theater shows in the UK. =A0Not bad for a body of wor= k > > composed 12 decades ago. > > I like musisal theatre shows about as much as anyone here - which is > to say, right! But if people do want to see a bit of 'outlet' from > Victorian poofs put to music, then that's their business. Everyone to > their own tastes. > > Brennen doesn't /need/ to invent my opinion, then argue against it in > order to have his own tastes catered for. That's why Taylor Kingston > exists. > > If the bloke likes to see his pirates in make-up and singing lovely > little ditties, then all I say is not to confuse that with the real > world. > > Phil Innes I ran across this example from "Chess the Musical:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dwsq36ndiEmQ I did not know that Barbara went to Erasmus High... Rev. J.D. Walker     Date: 19 Jan 2009 12:30:25 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 12:55=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > THE PROJECTION OF ENVY In taking strong offense at my criticisms of liars such as Mr. Soltis, or the refusal of a Mr. Nunn to accept any responsibility for his own actions, Mr. Parr unwittingly throws his idol, Mr. Evans, into the same boiling pot with them. In my opinion, these are not necessarily the same pot. Mr. Evans could well be suffering from more than just his bloated-ego or a fundamental dishonesty, as evidenced by the fact that in his younger days, he had a much sharper mind and generally did his own thinking. As we've seen more recently, there is a powerful tendency to simply parrot the twitchings of a Ray Keene or a Gary Kasparov on every issue. The sharp wit has faded away, leaving only a vestige of its former self... and this my friends is not a matter for which mortal men can be held accountable. Even Thor could not get the better of Old Age. -- help bot     Date: 19 Jan 2009 12:10:34 From: Rob Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest or Best Player Ever? On Jan 18, 11:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > THE BILE OF ENVY > > <To sum up: when these titled pufferies > lay claim to have done a lot of careful > analysis, it actually means they glanced > over a move here and there; grandmasters > it seems, have no idea what real work is, > having never experienced it first-hand... .> -- Greg Kennedy > > =A0 Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of grandmasters, who are > now "titled pufferies" who have "no idea what real work is." > Whereas, we are supposed to believe that Greg does know what "real > work" is. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 Odds are, Greg is telling the truth. =A0He does know what rea= l > work is, claiming to have spent years putting thigamabobs together or, > possibly, taking doohinkees apart on a production line in Indiana. > > =A0 =A0 =A0The story is a simple one: =A0Greg longed with poignant pining= to > be among those GM "titled pufferies" who would not have to know what > "real work" is; the man did not have the talent to be a puffery; and > the gent has spent a deflated life resenting his station -- an honest > one, moreover -- in life. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 End result: =A0Greg appears here in transparent disguise unde= r > false names (no more chess, help bot) spewing the always acrid, even > when accurate, bile of envy. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > it. =A0Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, and Taylor > Kingston, who gives evidence of having read and who has written > generally fine book reviews. =A0Hence, too, the delicious hissing he > directs, now and then, at GM Larry Evans, whom I dubbed years ago -- > to the intense annoyance of the famous 5-time champion's detractorss > -- the Sage of Reno. > > =A0 =A0 =A0Our Greg is a bit of work, he is. > > =A0Yours, Larry Parr > > > > help bot wrote: > > On Jan 18, 4:11?pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > ? To sum up: when these titled pufferies > > > > lay claim to have done a lot of careful > > > > analysis, it actually means they glanced > > > > over a move here and there; grandmasters > > > > it seems, have no idea what real work is, > > > > having never experienced it first-hand... . > > > > That is one thing, however true. The real test though is what they do > > > when no opinion prevails, and they have to move OTB in average 2.5 > > > minutes. There, I suggest to you, they have it. The real test of ches= s > > > is to play by its rules, and in real time. Tal said it, Fischer playe= d > > > like that, and I think we owe them at least this. > > > > Next day we are all better quarter backs, but in 2.5 minutes we suck > > > more than they do, no? > > > =A0 I should hope that, being /professional/ chess > > players, these puffy grandmasters can somehow > > manage to best mere amateurs OTB. > > > =A0 But there is another realm of chess, in which > > the pufferies, the GMs mainly, fall down, and > > that is the realm of objective analysis via hard > > work and careful thought. > > > =A0 We saw this with the numerous corrections > > sent in to Mr. Evans, month after month. =A0We > > saw it much more with the advent of stupid > > machines, operated by curious amateurs who, > > despite their utter lack of chess understanding, > > poked holes in the published-for-profit works of > > many, many grandmasters by simply doing > > their homework! > > > =A0 You see my boy, it is not all about who wins > > 1st through 4th at the New York Open. =A0 Many > > of these amateurs are not in it for the money, > > nor to puff-up their own egos, but rather, they > > are in it for the love of the game. > > > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Was he the Greatest? Was he the Best? Was he the most dominate between 1969-1972?     Date: 19 Jan 2009 11:54:49 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 10:21=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > WHAT GREG KENNEDY LEAVES OUT > > >But not all grandmasters have been brought low by thier [sic] own imagin= ed self- > > importance. The worst of the lot, the Bobby Fischers and Gary > Kasparovs and > Ray Keenes -- world's foremost everything -- draw our attention, but > there must be a > few rational men out there, somewhere, holding their chess titles > loosely, not > grasping at them like straws. What was Mr. Parr's title again-- I > forgot; oh yes, > now I recall: he has none. Is it any wonder then, that he must live > vicariously > through another, through GM Evans. So sad. So pitiful.> -- Greg > Kennedy > > =A0 Where Greg Kennedy is concerned, it is always instructive to note > what he leaves out of a response. > > =A0 =A0 =A0In this case, Greg elided my reference to his experiencing "re= al > work" on an Indiana assembly line, unlike his hated grandmasters, > those men with "title puffery," who never learned, as he claims, what > "real work" happens to be. Poor Greg is even jealous of me - won't leave it alone. I think he secretly wants to be an almost-IM too. <LOL > > =A0 =A0 =A0For the first time on this forum, Greg has shed the fetters fr= om > his expressions of sheer hatred for chess grandmasters. =A0In response > to my statement, "Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of > grandmasters," he replies, "One does not envy those liars and frauds; > rather, one/pities/them." > > =A0 =A0 =A0It must feel liberating to Greg to toss away at last the shack= les > of restraint on his canker. =A0As for the man pitying those whom he > clearly hates for enjoying a life that he could not have, one need > merely read his response to this writer. True, our Greg feels pity. > But only for himself. And of course for Taylor Kingston. Actually, more for Taylor Kingston. Our Greg is merely constrained in his world view, not ignorant to a fault! IMAGINE demanding proofs of things which really require one's own wit to determine things. No - its vicarious existence which destroys and makes mean of people's souls - and Rybka is little comfort at the end of the day [not in the openings either, which I think Mike Murray has noticed, and which I owe him a bit more on the Traxler, since he bothered to put in real effort] > =A0 =A0 =A0As Greg noted on several occasions, he coulda been a Bobby, a > real contendah, if only he had been in New York rather than, as he > expressed it, the =A0"cultural wasteland" that he imagines Indiana to > be. =A0He told us how much he hated his job for its soul-destroying > repetitive work. =A0He claimed repeatedly that he had GM-stuff inside > his hardworking carcass, and he spent a life dreaming about and > striving to become a guy who could escape the "real work" on his > Indiana assembly line. But that's no crime in itself - indeed the dignity of labor has never been much respected in this country, based as it is on a slave-state. Current 'workers' are still in very large part 'wage-slaves'. But resenting those who escaped brute circumstance is not quite healthy, while being completely understandable. Things shifted substantially in this country the past 25 years - the American Dream, available to just a few it seems, is won at the cost of your brother, your colleague. As much as that sort of dream was ever true, it is this day, redundant. The real dream was to be able to speak your conscience and yet survive in the society - for many in the world this was/is utterly impossible. > =A0 =A0 =A0But it was "real work" that Greg came to know rather than the > joys of "puffery." =A0He appears now as our forum crank -- half ranting > village atheist, half future fodder for Colney Hatch -- with few good > words to say about anyone. > > =A0 =A0 =A0So, there is GM Ray Keene, holding forth in The Times of Londo= n > and The Spectator, taking his dinners at the Athenaeum, overseeing his > son's progress through Eton, enjoying his years in Kensington, or is > it Belgravia? I have his address. Its neither of those, and not a particularly smart district. Certaibly better than the places I stayed inLondon as a 'yuf', including squats where, on the very first night a considerable portion of the roof fell in, but I digress... > =A0A typical evening of the past with this writer has > involved a few glasses of Ray's six-punyyos Hungarian tokay and an > amusing discussion of, say, "Chips" Channon's Diaries. =A0One can hear > Greg, "Channon, Shmannon. =A0Who was he?" > > =A0 =A0 =A0Or there is Larry Evans in his stylish eyrie just above Reno, > enjoying a quiet and fine life of making good money and writing and > ruminating in his well-stocked library, as his successful artist-wife > works in her large skylight-window studio in their spacious home. > > =A0 =A0 =A0Still worse, there is this writer who also has never known wha= t > Greg has experienced and what the man himself has told us, in at times > moving testimony, is stultifying, repetitive, daily labor on an > assembly line. =A0Instead, I write memoirs, bios and speeches -- > enjoying nearly every minute of my years in New York, Europe and, > these days, the Far East. > > =A0 =A0 =A0Greg claims that he pities those =A0of us who live the life he= once > so poignantly told us he could also have lived. =A0He firmly believes, > perhaps with some justification, that he showed promise at chess in > his early salad years when he coulda been a contendah if it had not > been for, as he imagines in his sadness, a geographical accident. But my sympathies lie, Larry, with him since I am much like him. Despite the possibilities of 'escape' to something else, what values did we poor boys have in anything else? None were affordable or sustainable to us, and we did not admire our 'betters' since not even a single sausage slipped to us from the big table. At least that was working-class England. Albeit, such as we were the best scholars, best business people, and best neighbours in our communities. But such is maintained, or rather endured at a cost. Just as rich people are often weak in their citizenship and humanity, substituting what you can buy in its place, when you have little, then there is a sense over time of lessened self-worth because of restricted circumstances. The American Constitution did not recommend this situation to us, neither is it solved by complaining about it, or any form of resentment. Hopefully, and I speak on the eve of a new presidential era in America, the very means of being decent and sufficient unto yourself and family can be implemented. As above, for many people now, this has not been the case for a long time heretofore. Hardly any leaders found decent, hardly any means of retaining both conscience [in a religious sense - the religious sense of the Founders] and social wherewithal been evidenced in the life of the country's citizens. > =A0 =A0 =A0Apparently quoting himself, Greg goes on and on about the > limitations of chess as an intellectual pursuit. =A0In the Denker-Parr > volume "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories" we said the same > thing this way: =A0"[A]s the composer, Felix Mendelssohn once observed, > 'Chess is too earnest for a game; too much of a game to be earnest > about.'" =A0Finis. > > =A0 =A0 =A0It's a pity -- yes, a pity -- that Greg failed to understand t= his > point a lot earlier. =A0He might have read the Great Books rather than > lying to himself that those 1960s comic books constituted an adequate > substitute for assiduous study; he might have written articles and > books rather than attaching thigamabobs on his hated factory assembly > line; and he would not find himself several times on this forum each > day,attacking with such furious and frenzied fatuity and futility > those who never had to do his much-hated, oft-described, never-escaped > "real work." You will see from the above that I am not in entire sympathy with your reflets, here. Even the perception of attaining an egalite status as the founders would have liked, however likely that was ever manifested, have changed. The people who do the majority work in the country are at even greater risk than ever before to their security - meanwhile more and more is owned by fewer and fewer - hardly the right basis for an Libertarian perspective which is not merely rhetorical; one is free to complain and whine - and what sort of freedom is that exactly? That people do that is something that might be understood, rather than regretted in the World's republic. Of itself, sure, a culture of complaint is a disease as likely to kill your soul as riches and gluttony of all forms. But the people have no surety any more of decent public models, and this, to take up cudgels with you, is my own contrasting opinion. None of this will be solved by words - though words can address the real vector of things in 2009, and also suggest what compass is necessary to fulfill the mission statement, as it were, of the country itself. Those documents lie very much still in evidence, and as certainly in potential. They are not actuated Ideas, no matter how grand and promising they are. Here then is my gradus ad Parnassum. Cordially, Phil Innes > Yours, Larry Parr     Date: 19 Jan 2009 10:57:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot on Steinitz (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player On Jan 19, 11:18=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Now, while I am not prepared to fight a > > battle of pedantry over who thinks what > > concerning each of these matches, my > > number [i.e. his claim that Steinitz won 20 straight world championship= matches =97 TK] > > was taken from some published > > book or other, > =A0 This is what passes for erudition with our Greg. His totally > inaccurate claim that Steinitz "won 20 straight world championship > matches" is attributed to "some published book or other." What depth > of research, what thoroughness and scholarship! Is Mr. Kingston suggesting that such nonsense has never appeared in the literature of chess? Or does he perhaps imagine, once again, that he can prove a negative, while no one else can. Recall that in one of our earlier go-'rounds, Mr. Kingston insisted that former world champion Tigran Petrosian had never said anything about being offered a bribe. Our daring-do boy also claimed that this was so /because/ it was I who mentioned it, and he didn't especially like me, you see-- such was his "reasoning". Whereupon some fellow whose name I don't recall came from out of nowhere, referencing the exact words from a source I've never even heard of; it is very likely then, that this same story was published in more than one place, perhaps even several; yet golden boy Kingston could not "find" it-- such is his research inadequacy. > > while Mr. Kingston's idea > > was that "historians" disagree, which of > > course they always do. =A0 > =A0 No, my point was that Steinitz did not even play anywhere near 20 > world championship matches, let alone win 20 straight. Yet my point, in the context of a discussion of /chess greatness/, was that several if not many world champions had won more titles than Mr. Fischer; Mr. Steinitz was but an offhand example, and there need be only two, not twenty title matches, to validate my point. I might just as easily have picked Mr. Botvinnik, or Mr. Lasker, or Mr. Alekhine, or... you get the point. Bobby Fischer earned but a /single/ FIDE world championship title, so he falls short of others in this particular category of "greatness". > Depending on > whether one dates Steinitz's reign from 1886 or 1866, he won at worst > only four matches in a row Is it important that they are won in-a-row, in the context of the point I was making? Um, no. > ( vs. Zukertort 1886, Chigorin 1889, > Gunsberg 1891, Chigorin 1892), and at best eight A pedant's paradise, that subject. Personally, I find it more interesting to note that the famed Mr. Blackburne once had his head put through a window pane-- a sort of "saving move", as it were. Was it official? I neither know nor care. > =A0 My point, contrary to Greg's persistent misrepresentations, was not > that Fischer's title match record was comparable, nor did it have > anything to do with "historians disagreeing." > =A0 My only point was that our Greg was plainly and simply wrong. He > claimed something that is factually untrue Why am I reminded of another recent thread, in which The Great Kingston did precisely the same thing? Could it be that Mr. Kingston thinks it's okay for /him/ to blunder once in awhile, but not for anyone else? It woudn't surprise me one bit. > > Suffice it to say > > that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid > > claim to having been the world champ > > from 1866 onward, > =A0 Actually, as far as I know, Steinitz usually (if not completely) > avoided referring to himself as "world champion" Perhaps a bit of reading might help? I would suggest you start with free materials, such as those available on the Net. One interesting site is chesshistory.com (which just happens to be my source in this case). > while Morphy (who died in 1884) was still alive. A very interesting point. In my readings, I noted that folks of that era seemed awfully reluctant to credit anyone fully, likely out of fear that Mr. Morphy might return and make their words look silly! This is ever so similar to the situation we've had with Bobby Fischer, after his premature retirement. And yet, for those few of us who are not completely obsessed with idolatry of BF, it is a very simple matter -- especially now that he's dead -- to put things into their proper perspective after the fact. > I believe it was only some time _after_ > Morphy's death, and Steinitz's official win of the title vs. Zukertort > in 1886, that he began back-dating his reign to 1866. This quite understandable, in view of the age at which Paul Morphy had retired. But one notes that Emanuel Lasker also "backdated" Mr. Steinitz' reign to the same date. One problem here is that at that time, it was not clear whether tournament or match play was prefered for deciding who was world champion; indeed, offhand claims may credit nobodies with having "been among" them, which seems absurd to modern readers. There was also an idea that one could have, simultaneously, a match and a tournament world champion-- much as we have a human and a computer world champion today. > Offhand, the > earliest reference I know of is a letter from Steinitz to the > publishing company Geo. Rutledge and Sons, dated 3 April *_1890_*: > > =A0 "if you find no room for details I think for the credit of your own > publication you ought to mention that in 1866 I won the Match > championship of the world by beating the late Prof > Anderssen ..." =A0 =A0(quoted from Landsberger, "The Steinitz > Papers" (McFarland & Co, 2002), p. 115) > =A0 Now, Greg, if you can find an 1866 quote that has Steinitz claiming > to be world champion Apparently, we are witnessing the return of the great Dr. Blair-- in disguise! Nowhere have I laid claim to the idea that the issue is as described above; that it has to do with the timing of somebody's chit- chat. No, my claim had naught to do with such petty, pedantic event-dating; it had everything to do with the fact that while Bobby Fischer has won but a single world title, his rivals to greatness in chess have won more-- in a few cases, far more. Based on what I've read in chess books (unreliable nonsense, I admit), the name that sprang to mind was that of Mr. Steinitz, followed by Mr. Botvinnik-- both multiple claimants versus only one for BF. Not to obssess over this, for it is only a single line-item in the accounts book of "chess greatness"; there are so many other categories to consider. > I will be happy to revise my opinion, and you > will be contributing something worthwhile to chess history. I /could/ assasinate some chess villain... but who? Ray Keene may well be across the wide Atlantic, and anybody less prestigious would be, well, stooping. How about if I just destroy some random grandmaster, when they all come to play in the U.S. Open in Indianapolis later this year? (This will, of course, require some help from Fritz... on every move, including move one). > =A0 Quite true. But completely irrelevant to your claim that Steinitz > won "20 straight world championship matches." You see, Greg, if you > have a good point to make, it's best to support it only with facts I have to admit, I took what I read years ago at face value. Only lately have I realized, more and more, that much of what appears in print is the purest nonsense. But I can't "erase" everything-- that would mean forgetting about George Washington cutting down the cherry tree; Thomas Jefferson never even knowing Sally Hemming... it would be too disorienting. What I have been trying to do is not erase to a blank slate, but to "overwrite" with good data, gradually to alleviate the shock. > and not to embellish it with wild exaggerations. The latter method > detracts from your credibility How odd. In order to "detract from" my credibility, I would logically need to have a positive balance in my account, for it is impossible to go below zero (they close your account, as I've discovered). Whenever I see such claims with regard to, say, Dr. IMnes, I am taken aback; how can anyone believe there is /any/ money left, after so many titanic withdrawals? The obvious conclusion is that some posters in rgc just can't do math. -- help bot     Date: 19 Jan 2009 09:50:35 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 9:50=A0am, None <[email protected] > wrote: > Liary has made a career out of hanging onto GM Evans' coat tails. When > the GM farts Liary inhales. When Liary writes he exhales. Such a sad > situation but that which we have come to expect from chess groupies > such as Lairy, Sam and Moore. The sad part about this disgusting nose-up-LE's-butt situation, is that in many ways Mr. Parr is precisely the answer to some of GM Evans' most glaring problems-- his extreme difficulties with spelling, dates and other minor technical details. As demonstrated in an article I recently read in an old issue of Chess Life magazine, when the two get together, Mr. Evans' blunders can quite easily be eradicated, and this leaves only his other, less-glaring faults to be seen by readers. The article I mentioned was about Mr. Alekhine, and since Mr. Parr had seen fit to "edit" his idol, there were none of the usual, idiotic gaffes; the two even somehow managed to get Oxford Companion "to" Chess right. I believe the issue here is pride-- Mr. Evans is too proud to ask for such help, believing himself to be in essence, infallible, his ever-growing pool of critics the real problem. And of course his devoted, mind- less followers will never dare to suggest he might require any help at all; it would be akin to telling Zeus to stop his womanizing. -- help bot     Date: 19 Jan 2009 08:18:52 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Help-bot on Steinitz (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player On Jan 19, 4:29=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > > =A0 Now, while I am not prepared to fight a > battle of pedantry over who thinks what > concerning each of these matches, my > number [i.e. his claim that Steinitz won 20 straight world championship m= atches =97 TK] > was taken from some published > book or other, This is what passes for erudition with our Greg. His totally inaccurate claim that Steinitz "won 20 straight world championship matches" is attributed to "some published book or other." What depth of research, what thoroughness and scholarship! > while Mr. Kingston's idea > was that "historians" disagree, which of > course they always do. =A0 No, my point was that Steinitz did not even play anywhere near 20 world championship matches, let alone win 20 straight. Depending on whether one dates Steinitz's reign from 1886 or 1866, he won at worst only four matches in a row ( vs. Zukertort 1886, Chigorin 1889, Gunsberg 1891, Chigorin 1892), and at best eight (add Anderssen 1866, Bird 1866, Zukertort 1872, Blackburne 1876). See for example Gelo, "Chess World Championships" (McFarland & Co. 2006), or Pickard, "The Games of Wilhelm Steinitz" (1995). My point, contrary to Greg's persistent misrepresentations, was not that Fischer's title match record was comparable, nor did it have anything to do with "historians disagreeing." My only point was that our Greg was plainly and simply wrong. He claimed something that is factually untrue, and not even close to accurate, no matter which year one takes for the start of Steinitz's reign. > Suffice it to say > that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid > claim to having been the world champ > from 1866 onward, Actually, as far as I know, Steinitz usually (if not completely) avoided referring to himself as "world champion" while Morphy (who died in 1884) was still alive. I believe it was only some time _after_ Morphy's death, and Steinitz's official win of the title vs. Zukertort in 1886, that he began back-dating his reign to 1866. Offhand, the earliest reference I know of is a letter from Steinitz to the publishing company Geo. Rutledge and Sons, dated 3 April *_1890_*: "if you find no room for details I think for the credit of your own publication you ought to mention that in 1866 I won the Match championship of the world by beating the late Prof Anderssen ..." (quoted from Landsberger, "The Steinitz Papers" (McFarland & Co, 2002), p. 115) Now, Greg, if you can find an 1866 quote that has Steinitz claiming to be world champion, I will be happy to revise my opinion, and you will be contributing something worthwhile to chess history. I realize that doing anything worthwhile runs counter to your nature, but try it =97 you might like it. > and get this-- a chap > by the name of Emmanuel Lasker agreed > with him. =A0Wap! =A0 The talk at the time was > that legitimate claim to the title lay in > taking on all comers, which is precisely > what Mr. Steinitz -- and few others -- did. Quite true. But completely irrelevant to your claim that Steinitz won "20 straight world championship matches." You see, Greg, if you have a good point to make, it's best to support it only with facts, and not to embellish it with wild exaggerations. The latter method detracts from your credibility, especially if you fail to admit your error and continue to insist you were right, when you're clearly wrong. <snip remaining help-bot blather >     Date: 19 Jan 2009 07:21:07 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? WHAT GREG KENNEDY LEAVES OUT >But not all grandmasters have been brought low by thier [sic] own imagined self- importance. The worst of the lot, the Bobby Fischers and Gary Kasparovs and Ray Keenes -- world's foremost everything -- draw our attention, but there must be a few rational men out there, somewhere, holding their chess titles loosely, not grasping at them like straws. What was Mr. Parr's title again-- I forgot; oh yes, now I recall: he has none. Is it any wonder then, that he must live vicariously through another, through GM Evans. So sad. So pitiful. > -- Greg Kennedy Where Greg Kennedy is concerned, it is always instructive to note what he leaves out of a response. In this case, Greg elided my reference to his experiencing "real work" on an Indiana assembly line, unlike his hated grandmasters, those men with "title puffery," who never learned, as he claims, what "real work" happens to be. For the first time on this forum, Greg has shed the fetters from his expressions of sheer hatred for chess grandmasters. In response to my statement, "Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of grandmasters," he replies, "One does not envy those liars and frauds; rather, one/pities/them." It must feel liberating to Greg to toss away at last the shackles of restraint on his canker. As for the man pitying those whom he clearly hates for enjoying a life that he could not have, one need merely read his response to this writer. True, our Greg feels pity. But only for himself. As Greg noted on several occasions, he coulda been a Bobby, a real contendah, if only he had been in New York rather than, as he expressed it, the "cultural wasteland" that he imagines Indiana to be. He told us how much he hated his job for its soul-destroying repetitive work. He claimed repeatedly that he had GM-stuff inside his hardworking carcass, and he spent a life dreaming about and striving to become a guy who could escape the "real work" on his Indiana assembly line. But it was "real work" that Greg came to know rather than the joys of "puffery." He appears now as our forum crank -- half ranting village atheist, half future fodder for Colney Hatch -- with few good words to say about anyone. So, there is GM Ray Keene, holding forth in The Times of London and The Spectator, taking his dinners at the Athenaeum, overseeing his son's progress through Eton, enjoying his years in Kensington, or is it Belgravia? A typical evening of the past with this writer has involved a few glasses of Ray's six-punyyos Hungarian tokay and an amusing discussion of, say, "Chips" Channon's Diaries. One can hear Greg, "Channon, Shmannon. Who was he?" Or there is Larry Evans in his stylish eyrie just above Reno, enjoying a quiet and fine life of making good money and writing and ruminating in his well-stocked library, as his successful artist-wife works in her large skylight-window studio in their spacious home. Still worse, there is this writer who also has never known what Greg has experienced and what the man himself has told us, in at times moving testimony, is stultifying, repetitive, daily labor on an assembly line. Instead, I write memoirs, bios and speeches -- enjoying nearly every minute of my years in New York, Europe and, these days, the Far East. Greg claims that he pities those of us who live the life he once so poignantly told us he could also have lived. He firmly believes, perhaps with some justification, that he showed promise at chess in his early salad years when he coulda been a contendah if it had not been for, as he imagines in his sadness, a geographical accident. Apparently quoting himself, Greg goes on and on about the limitations of chess as an intellectual pursuit. In the Denker-Parr volume "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories" we said the same thing this way: "[A]s the composer, Felix Mendelssohn once observed, 'Chess is too earnest for a game; too much of a game to be earnest about.'" Finis. It's a pity -- yes, a pity -- that Greg failed to understand this point a lot earlier. He might have read the Great Books rather than lying to himself that those 1960s comic books constituted an adequate substitute for assiduous study; he might have written articles and books rather than attaching thigamabobs on his hated factory assembly line; and he would not find himself several times on this forum each day,attacking with such furious and frenzied fatuity and futility those who never had to do his much-hated, oft-described, never-escaped "real work." Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Jan 19, 12:55?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To sum up: when these titled pufferies > > lay claim to have done a lot of careful > > analysis, it actually means they glanced > > over a move here and there; grandmasters > > it seems, have no idea what real work is, > > having never experienced it first-hand... .> -- Greg Kennedy > > > > ? Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of grandmasters > > > One does not envy those liars and fruads; > rather, one /pities/ them. > > > > ? ? ?The story is a simple one: ?Greg longed with poignant pining to > > be among those GM "titled pufferies" who would not have to know what > > "real work" is; the man did not have the talent to be a puffery; and > > the gent has spent a deflated life resenting his station -- an honest > > one, moreover -- in life. > > > Interestingly, although Mr. Parr is widely > regarded as a liar and "peanut", or nutter, > he never fails in pretending that *he* is GM > Evans, a man who obviously had real chess > talent though overshadowed by the untimely > appearance of Bobby Fischer. > > Against this backdrop of /imagined/ great- > ness, Mr. Parr attempts to size-up his > innumerable foes, landing squarely on top > as GM Evans, in first place. What would > Dr. Freud say-- a delusional? > > > > ? ? ? End result: ?Greg appears here in transparent disguise under > > false names (no more chess, help bot) > > > Only those two? What happened to the > purported skills in grammatical analysis-- > have they vanished? Or sorely dwindled > with the onset of old age and its unfortunate > ill-effects on the brain. > > > > ? ? ? One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > > it. ? > > > Perhaps he is still looking, like that ancient > Greek chap who wandered around with a lantern > in hand, unsuccessfully seeking an honest man. > > > > Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, and Taylor > > Kingston, who gives evidence of having read and who has written > > generally fine book reviews. ?Hence, too, the delicious hissing he > > directs, now and then, at GM Larry Evans, whom I dubbed years ago -- > > to the intense annoyance of the famous 5-time champion's detractorss > > -- the Sage of Reno. > > > I was certain Mr. Parr was going to say > the five-time U.S. champ. Few will know > that LE now resides in Reno Nevada-- or > care, for that matter. > > Here, once again, is a snippet of what has > appeared in rgc several times before, but > which seems to be well beyond the mental > powers of dullards like Mr. Parr: > > The idea of "greatness", as it applies to > chess, seems absurd to those of us who > can think. Although an invisible force can > /compel/ an otherwise intelligent man to > spend too much time on chess, the fact > remains that it is a purely artificial game, > with zero real value, in itself. > > Much as I dislike Mr. Einstein's silly > notions regarding the toying around with > Time to solve, or dissolve, some other > problem created by a mere thought-exper > -iment, I agree with him 100% in his sharp > criticism of a mental giant literally wasting > his intellect on a mere board-game. > > In view of these facts, it seems to me pre- > posterous to /project/ envy onto those who > are not and never were professional chess > players, if only because of the logical > absurdity of envying talents in the most > useless field of skill ever devised (outside > of an advertising agency)! > > If one wanted to project such envy, why > not invent a more rational, worthy prospect, > say, a doctor or a humanitarian? The very > concept of envying the typical egomaniacal > grandmaster boggles the mind. One need > look no further than the articles by The > Great Pedant on "the facts about Larry > Evans", or Ray Keene, to see that such > men are in dire need of help... professional > help; that their success across the chess > board has somehow led to their own internal > decay and destruction. Such men cannot > be but pitied. > > But not all grandmasters have been > brought low by thier own imagined self- > importance. The worst of the lot, the > Bobby Fischers and Gary Kasparovs and > Ray Keenes -- world's foremost everything > -- draw our attention, but there must be a > few rational men out there, somewhere, > holding their chess titles loosely, not > grasping at them like straws. What was > Mr. Parr's title again-- I forgot; oh yes, > now I recall: he has none. Is it any > wonder then, that he must live vicariously > through another, through GM Evans. So > sad. So pitiful. > > > -- help bot     Date: 19 Jan 2009 06:50:19 From: None Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 3:19=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 19, 12:55=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To sum up: when these titled pufferies > > lay claim to have done a lot of careful > > analysis, it actually means they glanced > > over a move here and there; grandmasters > > it seems, have no idea what real work is, > > having never experienced it first-hand... .> -- Greg Kennedy > > > =A0 Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of grandmasters > > =A0 =A0One does not envy those liars and fruads; > rather, one /pities/ them. > > > =A0 =A0 =A0The story is a simple one: =A0Greg longed with poignant pini= ng to > > be among those GM "titled pufferies" who would not have to know what > > "real work" is; the man did not have the talent to be a puffery; and > > the gent has spent a deflated life resenting his station -- an honest > > one, moreover -- in life. > > =A0 Interestingly, although Mr. Parr is widely > regarded as a liar and "peanut", or nutter, > he never fails in pretending that *he* is GM > Evans, a man who obviously had real chess > talent though overshadowed by the untimely > appearance of Bobby Fischer. > > =A0 Against this backdrop of /imagined/ great- > ness, Mr. Parr attempts to size-up his > innumerable foes, landing squarely on top > as GM Evans, in first place. =A0 What would > Dr. Freud say-- a delusional? > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 End result: =A0Greg appears here in transparent disguise un= der > > false names (no more chess, help bot) > > =A0 Only those two? =A0 What happened to the > purported skills in grammatical analysis-- > have they vanished? =A0 =A0Or sorely dwindled > with the onset of old age and its unfortunate > ill-effects on the brain. > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he fin= ds > > it. =A0 > > =A0 =A0Perhaps he is still looking, like that ancient > Greek chap who wandered around with a lantern > in hand, unsuccessfully seeking an honest man. > > > Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, and Taylor > > Kingston, who gives evidence of having read and who has written > > generally fine book reviews. =A0Hence, too, the delicious hissing he > > directs, now and then, at GM Larry Evans, whom I dubbed years ago -- > > to the intense annoyance of the famous 5-time champion's detractorss > > -- the Sage of Reno. > > =A0 =A0I was certain Mr. Parr was going to say > the five-time U.S. champ. =A0 Few will know > that LE now resides in Reno Nevada-- or > care, for that matter. > > =A0 =A0Here, once again, is a snippet of what has > appeared in rgc several times before, but > which seems to be well beyond the mental > powers of dullards like Mr. Parr: > > =A0 The idea of "greatness", as it applies to > chess, seems absurd to those of us who > can think. =A0 Although an invisible force can > /compel/ an otherwise intelligent man to > spend too much time on chess, the fact > remains that it is a purely artificial game, > with zero real value, in itself. > > =A0 Much as I dislike Mr. Einstein's silly > notions regarding the toying around with > Time to solve, or dissolve, some other > problem created by a mere thought-exper > -iment, I agree with him 100% in his sharp > criticism of a mental giant literally wasting > his intellect on a mere board-game. > > =A0 In view of these facts, it seems to me pre- > posterous to /project/ envy onto those who > are not and never were professional chess > players, if only because of the logical > absurdity of envying talents in the most > useless field of skill ever devised (outside > of an advertising agency)! > > =A0 If one wanted to project such envy, why > not invent a more rational, worthy prospect, > say, a doctor or a humanitarian? =A0 The very > concept of envying the typical egomaniacal > grandmaster boggles the mind. =A0 =A0One need > look no further than the articles by The > Great Pedant on "the facts about Larry > Evans", or Ray Keene, to see that such > men are in dire need of help... professional > help; that their success across the chess > board has somehow led to their own internal > decay and destruction. =A0 Such men cannot > be but pitied. > > =A0 =A0But not all grandmasters have been > brought low by thier own imagined self- > importance. =A0 =A0 The worst of the lot, the > Bobby Fischers and Gary Kasparovs and > Ray Keenes -- world's foremost everything > -- draw our attention, but there must be a > few rational men out there, somewhere, > holding their chess titles loosely, not > grasping at them like straws. =A0 What was > Mr. Parr's title again-- I forgot; oh yes, > now I recall: he has none. =A0 =A0 =A0Is it any > wonder then, that he must live vicariously > through another, through GM Evans. =A0So > sad. =A0 So pitiful. > > =A0 -- help bot What was Mr. Parr's title again-- I forgot; oh yes, now I recall: he has none. Is it any wonder then, that he must live vicariously through another, through GM Evans. So sad. So pitiful. -- help bot Liary has made a career out of hanging onto GM Evans' coat tails. When the GM farts Liary inhales. When Liary writes he exhales. Such a sad situation but that which we have come to expect from chess groupies such as Lairy, Sam and Moore.     Date: 19 Jan 2009 01:29:40 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 12:55=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > =A0 =A0 =A0 One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > it. =A0Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, A few words on "accomplishment"... Dr. IMnes, who imagines himself to be FIDE rated 2450 and hold the title of "nearly-an-IM" (among other things), is indeed a classicist in some respects. His main trouble stems from an utter inability to communicate ideas in comprehensible English-- ideas which I might add are often "lifted" wholesale without any acknowledgement whatever, until some time later in the midst of defending them against the likes of... > Taylor Kingston > who gives evidence of having read and who has written > generally fine book reviews. No problems there. As I have noted here before, these reviews generally follow a very predictable pattern which has naght to do with books, and everything to do with self- adulation. That being said, it is a common flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no one is cheated, and something can be learn- ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is a mere nuissance. The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his arrogant demeanor, which combines with a lack of intelligence to congeal into petty pedantry, at best. In one case, I pointed out in the midst of a discussion on "chess greatness" that, while Bobby Fischer had won but a single world championship, others had won more-- in the case of Mr. Steinitz, many more; to this observation came Mr. Kingston's nitwitted reply that I had miscounted; that instead of twenty or so matches, only a very few had officially been for the title of world champion. Now, while I am not prepared to fight a battle of pedantry over who thinks what concerning each of these matches, my number was taken from some published book or other, while Mr. Kingston's idea was that "historians" disagree, which of course they always do. Suffice it to say that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid claim to having been the world champ from 1866 onward, and get this-- a chap by the name of Emmanuel Lasker agreed with him. Wap! The talk at the time was that legitimate claim to the title lay in taking on all comers, which is precisely what Mr. Steinitz -- and few others -- did. Still, there is no reasoning with dullards who insist on ignoring one's point in favor of bickering over counting the angels on the head of a pin. This imbecile, Mr. Kingston, will at the same time complain that one cannot prove a negative, and he consistently remarks that the negative is proved if its reverse is not established by his many "adversaries" in rgc. It is, to borrow a phrase, the height of dumbth. The poor chap cannot see how he has repeatedly insisted that others do his research for him, to back his own wild claims, often as not, attempting to prove a negative. I strongly suspect that my own reaction upon seeing TK refered to as a "chess historian" was likely much like the gaffaw experienced by Mr. Parr in relation to Neil Brennen! This is a man who cannot -- or rather, refuses to -- find anything in the literature of chess he does not wish to see. I won't even bother going into the fiasco that occured when Mr. Kingston unwisely attempted to think-his-way-through the wild-eyed accusations of cheating by Mr. Botvinnik. In a word, flippity-floppity-splat. LOL -- help bot       Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:51:43 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 22, 11:02=A0am, None <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 21, 3:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 2:56=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 4:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 20, 3:17=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]= > wrote: > > > > > > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of s= coundrels, > > > > > > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't t= hink of > > > > > > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. = Even > > > > > > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil = Innes, Sam > > > > > > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something posit= ive, or at > > > > > > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sann= y's > > > > > > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mecha= nical > > > > > > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot ha= s > > > > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, > > > > > Yes it is untrue to say that - better said is that often, each of u= s > > > > finds a means of intelligent contribution which startles our > > > > colleagues and antagonists - since it is a clear exposition of a > > > > point. > > > > > To utterly negate others is to tend to pedantry oneself. I witness,= I > > > > own, help-bot has often made the decisive comment here on an issue. > > > > And I am no fucking fool to be wooed by liking or disliking any per= son > > > > - thought I admit here and there each of us can say best on an issu= e - > > > > the next day they can say worse. I admit this condition in myself, = and > > > > thereby in others. I know what my own lack a wit means from examini= ng > > > > my own motive - do you? > > > > > If not, neither bother a reply, if so, write with more humanity in = you > > > > next time, or suffer my insult to you here, anon. =A0:) > > > > > I don't need say what that is, eh, you know it. > > > > > > his satire really can be > > > > > > pretty funny. > > > > > > --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot ha= s > > > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really c= an > > > > > be > > > > > pretty funny. > > > > > He has contributed to intelligent conversation, and his satire is > > > > funny to those to whom satire is enough. But what is that to you, > > > > citizen, who cannot write your own name? You cannot even own your > > > > opinion - and exist in the realm of good or bad wankers, but wanker= s > > > > surely. I have said the same to the bot himself. > > > > > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Li= arry > > > > > of having a sense of humour. > > > > > Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness = by > > > > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who ca= res > > > > for anonymous whining about real people? > > > > > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > > > > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > > > > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. > > > > > Phil Innes > > > > > > Just look at those tomes he referenced. > > > > > Who keeps such droll books in their library? Yet we are supposed = to > > > > > believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his thro= ne > > > > > room. Sheeeesh.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liar= ry > > > > of having a sense of humour. > > > > --Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness > > > by > > > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who > > > cares > > > for anonymous whining about real people? --Phil Innes > > > > Who the fuck asked you asshole. > > > Who the fuck needs to 'ask' - what are you, a momma's boy? > > > > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > > > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > > > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. --Phil Innes > > > > You twit, you're about as funny as the runs. > > > A bit Brit. But not very funny, except if you like slag heaps, okay > > sunshine? > > > Phil- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A bit Brit. But not very funny, except if you like slag heaps, okay > sunshine? -- Phil > > Sorry but I don't care to leap hags and haggis is not nearly as good > as a glass of scotch. least you got a sense of humo[u]r. Besides, its well know the only way to eat haggis is to first render your palate insensible by eating heavily peppered bashed neeps, then several large ones of the single malt. After that you can eat practically anything, or even listen to Burns. best place to look at Skye, BTW, is from the north, like from Harris. bloody huge black rocks from out of time entirely - but maybe some other cover was going on about skye? huech!@ Phil > Agereed you should let the sun shine in as this > is indeed the age of aquariums. yeah, yeah, yeah.       Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:02:49 From: None Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 21, 3:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 21, 2:56=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 4:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 3:17=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> = wrote: > > > > > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of sco= undrels, > > > > > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't thi= nk of > > > > > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Ev= en > > > > > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil In= nes, Sam > > > > > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positiv= e, or at > > > > > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny'= s > > > > > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechani= cal > > > > > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, > > > > Yes it is untrue to say that - better said is that often, each of us > > > finds a means of intelligent contribution which startles our > > > colleagues and antagonists - since it is a clear exposition of a > > > point. > > > > To utterly negate others is to tend to pedantry oneself. I witness, I > > > own, help-bot has often made the decisive comment here on an issue. > > > And I am no fucking fool to be wooed by liking or disliking any perso= n > > > - thought I admit here and there each of us can say best on an issue = - > > > the next day they can say worse. I admit this condition in myself, an= d > > > thereby in others. I know what my own lack a wit means from examining > > > my own motive - do you? > > > > If not, neither bother a reply, if so, write with more humanity in yo= u > > > next time, or suffer my insult to you here, anon. =A0:) > > > > I don't need say what that is, eh, you know it. > > > > > his satire really can be > > > > > pretty funny. > > > > > --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can > > > > be > > > > pretty funny. > > > > He has contributed to intelligent conversation, and his satire is > > > funny to those to whom satire is enough. But what is that to you, > > > citizen, who cannot write your own name? You cannot even own your > > > opinion - and exist in the realm of good or bad wankers, but wankers > > > surely. I have said the same to the bot himself. > > > > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liar= ry > > > > of having a sense of humour. > > > > Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness by > > > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who care= s > > > for anonymous whining about real people? > > > > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > > > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > > > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. > > > > Phil Innes > > > > > Just look at those tomes he referenced. > > > > Who keeps such droll books in their library? Yet we are supposed to > > > > believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his throne > > > > room. Sheeeesh.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > > > of having a sense of humour. > > > --Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness > > by > > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who > > cares > > for anonymous whining about real people? --Phil Innes > > > Who the fuck asked you asshole. > > Who the fuck needs to 'ask' - what are you, a momma's boy? > > > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. --Phil Innes > > > You twit, you're about as funny as the runs. > > A bit Brit. But not very funny, except if you like slag heaps, okay > sunshine? > > Phil- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A bit Brit. But not very funny, except if you like slag heaps, okay sunshine? -- Phil Sorry but I don't care to leap hags and haggis is not nearly as good as a glass of scotch. Agereed you should let the sun shine in as this is indeed the age of aquariums. yeah, yeah, yeah.       Date: 21 Jan 2009 12:10:46 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 21, 2:56=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 20, 4:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 20, 3:17=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wr= ote: > > > > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoun= drels, > > > > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think= of > > > > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > > > > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Inne= s, Sam > > > > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive,= or at > > > > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > > > > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanica= l > > > > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, > > > Yes it is untrue to say that - better said is that often, each of us > > finds a means of intelligent contribution which startles our > > colleagues and antagonists - since it is a clear exposition of a > > point. > > > To utterly negate others is to tend to pedantry oneself. I witness, I > > own, help-bot has often made the decisive comment here on an issue. > > And I am no fucking fool to be wooed by liking or disliking any person > > - thought I admit here and there each of us can say best on an issue - > > the next day they can say worse. I admit this condition in myself, and > > thereby in others. I know what my own lack a wit means from examining > > my own motive - do you? > > > If not, neither bother a reply, if so, write with more humanity in you > > next time, or suffer my insult to you here, anon. =A0:) > > > I don't need say what that is, eh, you know it. > > > > his satire really can be > > > > pretty funny. > > > > --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can > > > be > > > pretty funny. > > > He has contributed to intelligent conversation, and his satire is > > funny to those to whom satire is enough. But what is that to you, > > citizen, who cannot write your own name? You cannot even own your > > opinion - and exist in the realm of good or bad wankers, but wankers > > surely. I have said the same to the bot himself. > > > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > > > of having a sense of humour. > > > Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness by > > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who cares > > for anonymous whining about real people? > > > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. > > > Phil Innes > > > > Just look at those tomes he referenced. > > > Who keeps such droll books in their library? Yet we are supposed to > > > believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his throne > > > room. Sheeeesh.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > > of having a sense of humour. > > --Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness > by > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who > cares > for anonymous whining about real people? --Phil Innes > > Who the fuck asked you asshole. Who the fuck needs to 'ask' - what are you, a momma's boy? > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. --Phil Innes > > You twit, you're about as funny as the runs. A bit Brit. But not very funny, except if you like slag heaps, okay sunshine? Phil       Date: 21 Jan 2009 11:56:11 From: None Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 20, 4:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 20, 3:17=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrot= e: > > > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundr= els, > > > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think o= f > > > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > > > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Innes,= Sam > > > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive, o= r at > > > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > > > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical > > > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, > > Yes it is untrue to say that - better said is that often, each of us > finds a means of intelligent contribution which startles our > colleagues and antagonists - since it is a clear exposition of a > point. > > To utterly negate others is to tend to pedantry oneself. I witness, I > own, help-bot has often made the decisive comment here on an issue. > And I am no fucking fool to be wooed by liking or disliking any person > - thought I admit here and there each of us can say best on an issue - > the next day they can say worse. I admit this condition in myself, and > thereby in others. I know what my own lack a wit means from examining > my own motive - do you? > > If not, neither bother a reply, if so, write with more humanity in you > next time, or suffer my insult to you here, anon. =A0:) > > I don't need say what that is, eh, you know it. > > > his satire really can be > > > pretty funny. > > > --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can > > be > > pretty funny. > > He has contributed to intelligent conversation, and his satire is > funny to those to whom satire is enough. But what is that to you, > citizen, who cannot write your own name? You cannot even own your > opinion - and exist in the realm of good or bad wankers, but wankers > surely. I have said the same to the bot himself. > > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > > of having a sense of humour. > > Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness by > being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who cares > for anonymous whining about real people? > > If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, > and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to > 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. > > Phil Innes > > > > > Just look at those tomes he referenced. > > Who keeps such droll books in their library? Yet we are supposed to > > believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his throne > > room. Sheeeesh.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > of having a sense of humour. --Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness by being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who cares for anonymous whining about real people? --Phil Innes Who the fuck asked you asshole. If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. --Phil Innes You twit, you're about as funny as the runs.       Date: 21 Jan 2009 08:44:54 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 20, 3:17=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundrel= s, > > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think of > > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Innes, S= am > > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive, or = at > > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical > > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can be > > pretty funny. > > --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can > be > pretty funny. > > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > of having a sense of humour. Just look at those tomes he referenced. > Who keeps such droll books in their library? I do. At least the Barzun tome Clio and the Doctors. And I've probably read, and perhaps own, books Mr. Parr has in his library. Yet we are supposed to > believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his throne > room. Sheeeesh.       Date: 20 Jan 2009 13:54:58 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 20, 3:17=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundrel= s, > > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think of > > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Innes, S= am > > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive, or = at > > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical > > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, Yes it is untrue to say that - better said is that often, each of us finds a means of intelligent contribution which startles our colleagues and antagonists - since it is a clear exposition of a point. To utterly negate others is to tend to pedantry oneself. I witness, I own, help-bot has often made the decisive comment here on an issue. And I am no fucking fool to be wooed by liking or disliking any person - thought I admit here and there each of us can say best on an issue - the next day they can say worse. I admit this condition in myself, and thereby in others. I know what my own lack a wit means from examining my own motive - do you? If not, neither bother a reply, if so, write with more humanity in you next time, or suffer my insult to you here, anon. :) I don't need say what that is, eh, you know it. > his satire really can be > > pretty funny. > > --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can > be > pretty funny. He has contributed to intelligent conversation, and his satire is funny to those to whom satire is enough. But what is that to you, citizen, who cannot write your own name? You cannot even own your opinion - and exist in the realm of good or bad wankers, but wankers surely. I have said the same to the bot himself. > This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry > of having a sense of humour. Since you speak of behalf of no-one, and demonstrate your non-ness by being anonymous, I will end any issue between us here, since who cares for anonymous whining about real people? If you want to take on Larry Parr, own your name and your opinions, and address him as a human being, or do as you do which is to 'bravely' jerk off to the gallery. Its a choice. Phil Innes > Just look at those tomes he referenced. > Who keeps such droll books in their library? Yet we are supposed to > believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his throne > room. Sheeeesh.       Date: 20 Jan 2009 12:17:12 From: None Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 20, 2:46=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundrels, > > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think of > > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Innes, Sam > > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive, or at > > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical > > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - > > I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has > never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can be > pretty funny. --I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can be pretty funny. This is meaningless to our Liarry. No one has ever accused our Liarry of having a sense of humour. Just look at those tomes he referenced. Who keeps such droll books in their library? Yet we are supposed to believe our Liarry has them close at hand. Maybe even in his throne room. Sheeeesh.       Date: 19 Jan 2009 23:46:48 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 2:16=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > =A0 Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundrels, > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think of > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Innes, Sam > Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive, or at > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.- Hide quoted text - I think you are being unfair. While it is true that help bot has never contributed *intelligently* to a topic, his satire really can be pretty funny.       Date: 19 Jan 2009 18:20:21 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? MORE COMIC RELIEF <What Mr. Parr seems to not know is that readers of chess book reviews are not looking to be impressed by form; they are, by and large, looking to see if a book would be worth purchasing, or if it is, like so much of the stuff put out these days, a waste of time and money. As a former editor, it is understandable that Mr. Parr is not fully aware of his own, peculiar tendency to focus on correct spelling and, as he calls it, form. But how many readers of chess book reviews care a whit? Few, I expect. > -- Greg Kennedy <Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical carping" and clumsy, tedious bile. > -- Taylor Kingston C'mon, TK. Surely the coulda been a contendah guy is good for comic relief. In every Greg Kennedy rant, he betrays his background. Greg now claims that we imagined historians were stodgy oldsters who never altered a position. No literate person ever imagined any such thing. Revisionism among historians is very common, and schools of history are frequently labelled as "court" history and "revisionist" history. There is a process in history of interpretations changing until someone writes a book that is unsuperseded. For example, Mattingly's "The Armada." The two best short, highly accessible sources for how history gets done are probably Jacques Barzun's "Clio and the Doctors" and Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Lecture. Finally, for Greg's edification -- not that it's expected to sink in -- "form" in a book review is not synonymous with punctuation or even accuracy of claims. It is about an approach to the work, treating the central theme at the proper moment. If Taylor Kingston has a flaw, such is his failing at times, though not at all times. His ancillary information still makes even his weakest reviews worth reading. <The article I mentioned was about Mr. Alekhine, and since Mr. Parr had seen fit to "edit" his idol, there were none of the usual, idiotic gaffes; the two even somehow managed to get Oxford Companion "to" Chess right. > -- Greg Kennedy Greg Kennedy can never get anything quite right. He tries. Lord knows, he tries. But I did not "edit" the article,"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Alekhine -- But Didn't Know Enough to Ask." GM Evans and I were co-authors. . It won the CJA award in 1993, if memory serves, for best history article. Taylor Kingston wrote: > On Jan 19, 12:39?pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Jan 19, 9:21?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > KENNEDY ON KINGSTON > > > > > <As I have noted here before, these reviews generally follow a very > > > predictable pattern which has naght [sic] to do with books, and > > > everything to do with self-adulation. That being said, it is a common > > > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no one is cheated, and > > > something can be learn-ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is a > > > mere nuissance. The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his arrogant > > > demeanor, which combines with a lack of intelligence to congeal into > > > petty pedantry, at best.> -- Greg Kennedy > > > > > Typical stuff from Greg Kennedy. ?I have no love lost for Taylor > > > Kingston and have written that he can be a stuffy pedant. ?But one is > > > compelled to say that he is a pedant at his worst rather than Greg's > > > unfair, silly charge that such is the man at his best. Not true. > > > > > ?Kingston's book reviews may be imperfect in method but are often > > > filled with interesting information that comes to the reader in lucid > > > form. ?They are better than 90% of the dreck written on chess. That is > > > not meant to be damnation by faint praise but my considered judgment > > > on his product. > > > > > Any judgment I might have on Greg Kennedy's rantings on this forum > > > cannot be more withering than, I imagine, his evaluation of his own > > > work. > > > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > > help bot wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 12:55?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > ? ? ? One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > > > > > it. ?Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, > > > > > > ? ?A few words on "accomplishment"... > > > > > > ? Dr. IMnes, who imagines himself to be FIDE > > > > rated 2450 and hold the title of "nearly-an-IM" > > > > (among other things), is indeed a classicist in > > > > some respects. ? His main trouble stems from > > > > an utter inability to communicate ideas in > > > > comprehensible English-- ideas which I might > > > > add are often "lifted" wholesale without any > > > > acknowledgement whatever, until some time > > > > later in the midst of defending them against > > > > the likes of... > > > > > > > Taylor Kingston > > > > > who gives evidence of having read and who has written > > > > > generally fine book reviews. > > > > > > ? No problems there. ? As I have noted here > > > > before, these reviews generally follow a very > > > > predictable pattern which has naght to do > > > > with books, and everything to do with self- > > > > adulation. ? That being said, it is a common > > > > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no > > > > one is cheated, and something can be learn- > > > > ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is > > > > a mere nuissance. > > > > > > ? The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his > > > > arrogant demeanor, which combines with a > > > > lack of intelligence to congeal into petty > > > > pedantry, at best. ? In one case, I pointed > > > > out in the midst of a discussion on "chess > > > > greatness" that, while Bobby Fischer had > > > > won but a single world championship, > > > > others had won more-- in the case of Mr. > > > > Steinitz, many more; to this observation > > > > came Mr. Kingston's nitwitted reply that I > > > > had miscounted; that instead of twenty or > > > > so matches, only a very few had officially > > > > been for the title of world champion. > > > > > > ? Now, while I am not prepared to fight a > > > > battle of pedantry over who thinks what > > > > concerning each of these matches, my > > > > number was taken from some published > > > > book or other, while Mr. Kingston's idea > > > > was that "historians" disagree, which of > > > > course they always do. ? Suffice it to say > > > > that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid > > > > claim to having been the world champ > > > > from 1866 onward, and get this-- a chap > > > > by the name of Emmanuel Lasker agreed > > > > with him. ?Wap! ? The talk at the time was > > > > that legitimate claim to the title lay in > > > > taking on all comers, which is precisely > > > > what Mr. Steinitz -- and few others -- did. > > > > > > ? Still, there is no reasoning with dullards > > > > who insist on ignoring one's point in favor > > > > of bickering over counting the angels on > > > > the head of a pin. ? ? This imbecile, Mr. > > > > Kingston, will at the same time complain > > > > that one cannot prove a negative, and he > > > > consistently remarks that the negative is > > > > proved if its reverse is not established by > > > > his many "adversaries" in rgc. ? It is, to > > > > borrow a phrase, the height of dumbth. > > > > > > ? The poor chap cannot see how he has > > > > repeatedly insisted that others do his > > > > research for him, to back his own wild > > > > claims, often as not, attempting to prove > > > > a negative. ? I strongly suspect that my > > > > own reaction upon seeing TK refered to > > > > as a "chess historian" was likely much > > > > like the gaffaw experienced by Mr. Parr > > > > in relation to Neil Brennen! ? ?This is a > > > > man who cannot -- or rather, refuses to > > > > -- find anything in the literature of chess > > > > he does not wish to see. > > > > > > ? I won't even bother going into the fiasco > > > > that occured when Mr. Kingston unwisely > > > > attempted to think-his-way-through the > > > > wild-eyed accusations of cheating by Mr. > > > > Botvinnik. ?In a word, flippity-floppity-splat. > > > > LOL > > > > > > ? -- help bot > > > > Mr. Kennedy styles himself as some sort of computer program or "Help > > Bot." ?Has it been positively determined that he IS NOT a cybernetic > > creation? ? > > There may be something to this, Rev. Recently another poster here > described Help-bot's MO as "mechanical carping," though I think he was > referring more to the unvarying sameness of his posts, rather than > suggesting they were actually mechanically generated. Help-bot's posts > have several characteristic traits, seen here over and over again: > > 1. An air of smug superiority and condescension, usually expressed > in very insulting terms. > 2. Malice and contempt toward all. Everyone is despised, everyone is > maligned. > 3. Everyone is always wrong, except of course help-bot. If he cannot > find any actual errors in a post, he brings up something trivial and/ > or irrelevant, and paints it as a glaring error of omission. Of > course, since the number of things not mentioned in a given post is > infinite, he has an infinite supply of trumped-up red herrings. > 4. No amount of factual evidence is sufficient to establish a point > help-bot disagrees with. > 5. Conversely, help-bot believes that none of his own assertions > require any factual support at all. > 6. Errors and lies, even after being clearly pointed out, are freely > repeated as facts whenever it suits him. > > I could list other recurring themes, but I think you get the idea. > > > Some have noted his close affinity to the gross, cross- > > posting, spammer named "Sanny." ?Is it possible that Help Bot is not > > human at all but rather a sister program to the horrible Get Club? > > I think we can be quite sure bot is human. As far as I know, he's > never denied being Greg Kennedy, who used to post here, IIRC, under > his own name and later as "nomorechess." > My own first impression of Kennedy was far from auspicious, when a > few years ago I found him claiming I had written a review deriding all > the books of IM Edward Lasker. This was completely false ? not only > had I never derided Lasker's books, but I had never reviewed them at > all. He really hasn't changed since then. > > > ?If > > so it would only be fair to hold >IT< to a different standard of > > criticism. ?Hmm... > > Help-bot already holds himself to "a different standard of > criticism." Pretty much every sin he accuses others of is present in > his own posts, in spades. > Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundrels, > fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think of > anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even > those I've had major disagreements with ? for example Phil Innes, Sam > Sloan, Larry Parr ? occasionally contribute something positive, or at > least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's > ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical > carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.       Date: 19 Jan 2009 14:16:11 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 12:39=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 19, 9:21=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > KENNEDY ON KINGSTON > > > <As I have noted here before, these reviews generally follow a very > > predictable pattern which has naght [sic] to do with books, and > > everything to do with self-adulation. That being said, it is a common > > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no one is cheated, and > > something can be learn-ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is a > > mere nuissance. The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his arrogant > > demeanor, which combines with a lack of intelligence to congeal into > > petty pedantry, at best.> -- Greg Kennedy > > > Typical stuff from Greg Kennedy. =A0I have no love lost for Taylor > > Kingston and have written that he can be a stuffy pedant. =A0But one is > > compelled to say that he is a pedant at his worst rather than Greg's > > unfair, silly charge that such is the man at his best. Not true. > > > =A0Kingston's book reviews may be imperfect in method but are often > > filled with interesting information that comes to the reader in lucid > > form. =A0They are better than 90% of the dreck written on chess. That i= s > > not meant to be damnation by faint praise but my considered judgment > > on his product. > > > Any judgment I might have on Greg Kennedy's rantings on this forum > > cannot be more withering than, I imagine, his evaluation of his own > > work. > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > help bot wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 12:55?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ? ? ? One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > > > > it. ?Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, > > > > =A0 =A0A few words on "accomplishment"... > > > > =A0 Dr. IMnes, who imagines himself to be FIDE > > > rated 2450 and hold the title of "nearly-an-IM" > > > (among other things), is indeed a classicist in > > > some respects. =A0 His main trouble stems from > > > an utter inability to communicate ideas in > > > comprehensible English-- ideas which I might > > > add are often "lifted" wholesale without any > > > acknowledgement whatever, until some time > > > later in the midst of defending them against > > > the likes of... > > > > > Taylor Kingston > > > > who gives evidence of having read and who has written > > > > generally fine book reviews. > > > > =A0 No problems there. =A0 As I have noted here > > > before, these reviews generally follow a very > > > predictable pattern which has naght to do > > > with books, and everything to do with self- > > > adulation. =A0 That being said, it is a common > > > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no > > > one is cheated, and something can be learn- > > > ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is > > > a mere nuissance. > > > > =A0 The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his > > > arrogant demeanor, which combines with a > > > lack of intelligence to congeal into petty > > > pedantry, at best. =A0 In one case, I pointed > > > out in the midst of a discussion on "chess > > > greatness" that, while Bobby Fischer had > > > won but a single world championship, > > > others had won more-- in the case of Mr. > > > Steinitz, many more; to this observation > > > came Mr. Kingston's nitwitted reply that I > > > had miscounted; that instead of twenty or > > > so matches, only a very few had officially > > > been for the title of world champion. > > > > =A0 Now, while I am not prepared to fight a > > > battle of pedantry over who thinks what > > > concerning each of these matches, my > > > number was taken from some published > > > book or other, while Mr. Kingston's idea > > > was that "historians" disagree, which of > > > course they always do. =A0 Suffice it to say > > > that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid > > > claim to having been the world champ > > > from 1866 onward, and get this-- a chap > > > by the name of Emmanuel Lasker agreed > > > with him. =A0Wap! =A0 The talk at the time was > > > that legitimate claim to the title lay in > > > taking on all comers, which is precisely > > > what Mr. Steinitz -- and few others -- did. > > > > =A0 Still, there is no reasoning with dullards > > > who insist on ignoring one's point in favor > > > of bickering over counting the angels on > > > the head of a pin. =A0 =A0 This imbecile, Mr. > > > Kingston, will at the same time complain > > > that one cannot prove a negative, and he > > > consistently remarks that the negative is > > > proved if its reverse is not established by > > > his many "adversaries" in rgc. =A0 It is, to > > > borrow a phrase, the height of dumbth. > > > > =A0 The poor chap cannot see how he has > > > repeatedly insisted that others do his > > > research for him, to back his own wild > > > claims, often as not, attempting to prove > > > a negative. =A0 I strongly suspect that my > > > own reaction upon seeing TK refered to > > > as a "chess historian" was likely much > > > like the gaffaw experienced by Mr. Parr > > > in relation to Neil Brennen! =A0 =A0This is a > > > man who cannot -- or rather, refuses to > > > -- find anything in the literature of chess > > > he does not wish to see. > > > > =A0 I won't even bother going into the fiasco > > > that occured when Mr. Kingston unwisely > > > attempted to think-his-way-through the > > > wild-eyed accusations of cheating by Mr. > > > Botvinnik. =A0In a word, flippity-floppity-splat. > > > LOL > > > > =A0 -- help bot > > Mr. Kennedy styles himself as some sort of computer program or "Help > Bot." =A0Has it been positively determined that he IS NOT a cybernetic > creation? =A0 There may be something to this, Rev. Recently another poster here described Help-bot's MO as "mechanical carping," though I think he was referring more to the unvarying sameness of his posts, rather than suggesting they were actually mechanically generated. Help-bot's posts have several characteristic traits, seen here over and over again: 1. An air of smug superiority and condescension, usually expressed in very insulting terms. 2. Malice and contempt toward all. Everyone is despised, everyone is maligned. 3. Everyone is always wrong, except of course help-bot. If he cannot find any actual errors in a post, he brings up something trivial and/ or irrelevant, and paints it as a glaring error of omission. Of course, since the number of things not mentioned in a given post is infinite, he has an infinite supply of trumped-up red herrings. 4. No amount of factual evidence is sufficient to establish a point help-bot disagrees with. 5. Conversely, help-bot believes that none of his own assertions require any factual support at all. 6. Errors and lies, even after being clearly pointed out, are freely repeated as facts whenever it suits him. I could list other recurring themes, but I think you get the idea. > Some have noted his close affinity to the gross, cross- > posting, spammer named "Sanny." =A0Is it possible that Help Bot is not > human at all but rather a sister program to the horrible Get Club? I think we can be quite sure bot is human. As far as I know, he's never denied being Greg Kennedy, who used to post here, IIRC, under his own name and later as "nomorechess." My own first impression of Kennedy was far from auspicious, when a few years ago I found him claiming I had written a review deriding all the books of IM Edward Lasker. This was completely false =97 not only had I never derided Lasker's books, but I had never reviewed them at all. He really hasn't changed since then. > =A0If > so it would only be fair to hold >IT< to a different standard of > criticism. =A0Hmm... Help-bot already holds himself to "a different standard of criticism." Pretty much every sin he accuses others of is present in his own posts, in spades. Of course, he's hardly alone in this. We have plenty of scoundrels, fools and hypocrites here besides Greg. But offhand I can't think of anyone who has so little on the positive side of the ledger. Even those I've had major disagreements with =97 for example Phil Innes, Sam Sloan, Larry Parr =97 occasionally contribute something positive, or at least interesting here. But aside from the odd game with Sanny's ridiculous program, Greg posts almost nothing here but "mechanical carping" and clumsy, tedious bile.       Date: 19 Jan 2009 11:52:41 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 12:39=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Mr. Kennedy styles himself as some sort of computer program or "Help > Bot." =A0Has it been positively determined that he IS NOT a cybernetic > creation? =A0 Forget about Mr. Parr and his idiotic claims to having done a syntax study which proves definitively that I am a Mr. Kennedy, a Mr. Murray or even a Mr. Brennen. The acid test is a careful examination of my chess games, at GetClub. I believe the evidence will show that no computer plays as poorly as I do-- with the single possible exception of Sanny's Java applet. Hence, I am not now nor could I ever have been a real computer (unless deliberately disabled). > Some have noted his close affinity to the gross, cross- > posting, spammer named "Sanny." =A0 Those same complainers as often mention the name "Mr. Sloan" as "Sanny"; note how a few pretenders will single out one for their, shall I say, attentions, while letting the other slide. That, my boy, is how one knows the pretenders-- by their hypocrisies and many self-contradictions. > Is it possible that Help Bot is not > human at all but rather a sister program to the horrible Get Club? Do I frequently "lock up", like Sanny's mon- strosity? No. Do I crash and freeze your computer? No. Have I improved by a factor of six million times in just the last two weeks? No. Now, what have we learned here? That's right: there is no computer posting to rgc since the Blairbot went in the shop for repairs-- and you can quote me on that. -- help bot       Date: 19 Jan 2009 11:35:23 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 12:21 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > Kingston's book reviews may be imperfect in method but are often > filled with interesting information that comes to the reader in lucid > form. What Mr. Parr seems to not know is that readers of chess book reviews are not looking to be impressed by form; they are, by and large, looking to see if a book would be worth purchasing, or if it is, like so much of the stuff put out these days, a waste of time and money. As a former editor, it is understandable that Mr. Parr is not fully aware of his own, peculiar tendency to focus on correct spelling and, as he calls it, form. But how many readers of chess book reviews care a whit? Few, I expect. > They are better than 90% of the dreck written on chess The real question is, are they the best one can find, for free? As I have discussed here before, some book reviews at the Web site of IM Silman are utterly without merit, appearing to have been penned as an afterthough, a nuissance even. These tend to be reviews of books not having to do with openings theory, or at least not to do with those openings in which the authors are interested. Such as these can be easily bested by Mr. Kingston, if he happens to have reviewed the same tome, perchance. But also free, and easily available are the chess book reviews on Mr. Silman's site which delve deeply into the theory of certain openings or lines in which the authors feel they are expert. In these cases, the stock treatment given by a Taylor Kingston serves only to enlighten readers as to his true motive-- self-flaggelation or put another way, puffing up his own ego a bit more. Indeed, a few reviews I saw at the Silman site amounted to nearly a book in them- selves, so detailed were the analyses, so powerful the effort of the reviewer to "prove" himself the superior analyst! In addition, there are sometimes, but not always, links to reviews of the same book by other reviewers, which can give a prospective buyer a variety of perspectives, and hope- fully, compensate for any personal feelings pro or con any one reviewer might have toward a particular book's author. In sum, while Mr. Kingston's reviews are neither great nor terrible, there may well be another Web site which offers much more-- unless the site on which TK's book reviews can be found has handy links to several other reviewers' opinions in addition to his own (I don't recall). In any case, my main complaints regard- ing Mr. Kingston's failings have never focused on his book reviews-- a fact which a dullard like Mr. Parr cannot seem to grasp with his puny little mind. The best example I can think of offhand was the strange case of Mr. Kingston writing a letter to the editor of Chess Lies, and in which some wild speculations Mr. Evans had "borrowed" from an unreliable source were enthusiastically endorsed by our boy, TK. A bit of time passes and TK switches to /opposing/ the ideas he had formerly endorsed, in print. We were informed that Mr. Kingston had not bothered to think things through earlier, but now, having actually bothered to reflect a tad, he had flipped his position, like say, an acrobat or a pancake cook. Oh, but that was only the beginning of our story, for next we are told that having /really/ thought this through, for real and for true this time, Mr. Kingston had come to the conclusion that he was right, then wrong, and now he knew for certain-sure that he was right again, and thus, so was the chap Mr. Evans had parroted! Whew-- and you thought chess "historians" were stodgy old farts who, once having made up their minds, never budged... . LOL -- help bot       Date: 19 Jan 2009 09:39:35 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 9:21=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > KENNEDY ON KINGSTON > > <As I have noted here before, these reviews generally follow a very > predictable pattern which has naght [sic] to do with books, and > everything to do with self-adulation. That being said, it is a common > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no one is cheated, and > something can be learn-ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is a > mere nuissance. The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his arrogant > demeanor, which combines with a lack of intelligence to congeal into > petty pedantry, at best.> -- Greg Kennedy > > Typical stuff from Greg Kennedy. =A0I have no love lost for Taylor > Kingston and have written that he can be a stuffy pedant. =A0But one is > compelled to say that he is a pedant at his worst rather than Greg's > unfair, silly charge that such is the man at his best. Not true. > > =A0Kingston's book reviews may be imperfect in method but are often > filled with interesting information that comes to the reader in lucid > form. =A0They are better than 90% of the dreck written on chess. That is > not meant to be damnation by faint praise but my considered judgment > on his product. > > Any judgment I might have on Greg Kennedy's rantings on this forum > cannot be more withering than, I imagine, his evaluation of his own > work. > > Yours, Larry Parr > > help bot wrote: > > On Jan 19, 12:55?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ? ? ? One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > > > it. ?Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, > > > =A0 =A0A few words on "accomplishment"... > > > =A0 Dr. IMnes, who imagines himself to be FIDE > > rated 2450 and hold the title of "nearly-an-IM" > > (among other things), is indeed a classicist in > > some respects. =A0 His main trouble stems from > > an utter inability to communicate ideas in > > comprehensible English-- ideas which I might > > add are often "lifted" wholesale without any > > acknowledgement whatever, until some time > > later in the midst of defending them against > > the likes of... > > > > Taylor Kingston > > > who gives evidence of having read and who has written > > > generally fine book reviews. > > > =A0 No problems there. =A0 As I have noted here > > before, these reviews generally follow a very > > predictable pattern which has naght to do > > with books, and everything to do with self- > > adulation. =A0 That being said, it is a common > > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no > > one is cheated, and something can be learn- > > ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is > > a mere nuissance. > > > =A0 The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his > > arrogant demeanor, which combines with a > > lack of intelligence to congeal into petty > > pedantry, at best. =A0 In one case, I pointed > > out in the midst of a discussion on "chess > > greatness" that, while Bobby Fischer had > > won but a single world championship, > > others had won more-- in the case of Mr. > > Steinitz, many more; to this observation > > came Mr. Kingston's nitwitted reply that I > > had miscounted; that instead of twenty or > > so matches, only a very few had officially > > been for the title of world champion. > > > =A0 Now, while I am not prepared to fight a > > battle of pedantry over who thinks what > > concerning each of these matches, my > > number was taken from some published > > book or other, while Mr. Kingston's idea > > was that "historians" disagree, which of > > course they always do. =A0 Suffice it to say > > that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid > > claim to having been the world champ > > from 1866 onward, and get this-- a chap > > by the name of Emmanuel Lasker agreed > > with him. =A0Wap! =A0 The talk at the time was > > that legitimate claim to the title lay in > > taking on all comers, which is precisely > > what Mr. Steinitz -- and few others -- did. > > > =A0 Still, there is no reasoning with dullards > > who insist on ignoring one's point in favor > > of bickering over counting the angels on > > the head of a pin. =A0 =A0 This imbecile, Mr. > > Kingston, will at the same time complain > > that one cannot prove a negative, and he > > consistently remarks that the negative is > > proved if its reverse is not established by > > his many "adversaries" in rgc. =A0 It is, to > > borrow a phrase, the height of dumbth. > > > =A0 The poor chap cannot see how he has > > repeatedly insisted that others do his > > research for him, to back his own wild > > claims, often as not, attempting to prove > > a negative. =A0 I strongly suspect that my > > own reaction upon seeing TK refered to > > as a "chess historian" was likely much > > like the gaffaw experienced by Mr. Parr > > in relation to Neil Brennen! =A0 =A0This is a > > man who cannot -- or rather, refuses to > > -- find anything in the literature of chess > > he does not wish to see. > > > =A0 I won't even bother going into the fiasco > > that occured when Mr. Kingston unwisely > > attempted to think-his-way-through the > > wild-eyed accusations of cheating by Mr. > > Botvinnik. =A0In a word, flippity-floppity-splat. > > LOL > > > =A0 -- help bot Mr. Kennedy styles himself as some sort of computer program or "Help Bot." Has it been positively determined that he IS NOT a cybernetic creation? Some have noted his close affinity to the gross, cross- posting, spammer named "Sanny." Is it possible that Help Bot is not human at all but rather a sister program to the horrible Get Club? If so it would only be fair to hold >IT< to a different standard of criticism. Hmm... http://www.alicebot.org/manchester.html       Date: 19 Jan 2009 09:21:19 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? KENNEDY ON KINGSTON <As I have noted here before, these reviews generally follow a very predictable pattern which has naght [sic] to do with books, and everything to do with self-adulation. That being said, it is a common flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no one is cheated, and something can be learn-ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is a mere nuissance. The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his arrogant demeanor, which combines with a lack of intelligence to congeal into petty pedantry, at best. > -- Greg Kennedy Typical stuff from Greg Kennedy. I have no love lost for Taylor Kingston and have written that he can be a stuffy pedant. But one is compelled to say that he is a pedant at his worst rather than Greg's unfair, silly charge that such is the man at his best. Not true. Kingston's book reviews may be imperfect in method but are often filled with interesting information that comes to the reader in lucid form. They are better than 90% of the dreck written on chess. That is not meant to be damnation by faint praise but my considered judgment on his product. Any judgment I might have on Greg Kennedy's rantings on this forum cannot be more withering than, I imagine, his evaluation of his own work. Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Jan 19, 12:55?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ? ? ? One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > > it. ?Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, > > > A few words on "accomplishment"... > > > Dr. IMnes, who imagines himself to be FIDE > rated 2450 and hold the title of "nearly-an-IM" > (among other things), is indeed a classicist in > some respects. His main trouble stems from > an utter inability to communicate ideas in > comprehensible English-- ideas which I might > add are often "lifted" wholesale without any > acknowledgement whatever, until some time > later in the midst of defending them against > the likes of... > > > > Taylor Kingston > > who gives evidence of having read and who has written > > generally fine book reviews. > > > No problems there. As I have noted here > before, these reviews generally follow a very > predictable pattern which has naght to do > with books, and everything to do with self- > adulation. That being said, it is a common > flaw, and the reviews are free, after all; no > one is cheated, and something can be learn- > ed about the books; TK's self-flagellation is > a mere nuissance. > > The main trouble with Mr. Kingston is his > arrogant demeanor, which combines with a > lack of intelligence to congeal into petty > pedantry, at best. In one case, I pointed > out in the midst of a discussion on "chess > greatness" that, while Bobby Fischer had > won but a single world championship, > others had won more-- in the case of Mr. > Steinitz, many more; to this observation > came Mr. Kingston's nitwitted reply that I > had miscounted; that instead of twenty or > so matches, only a very few had officially > been for the title of world champion. > > Now, while I am not prepared to fight a > battle of pedantry over who thinks what > concerning each of these matches, my > number was taken from some published > book or other, while Mr. Kingston's idea > was that "historians" disagree, which of > course they always do. Suffice it to say > that Mr. Steinitz himself repeatedly laid > claim to having been the world champ > from 1866 onward, and get this-- a chap > by the name of Emmanuel Lasker agreed > with him. Wap! The talk at the time was > that legitimate claim to the title lay in > taking on all comers, which is precisely > what Mr. Steinitz -- and few others -- did. > > Still, there is no reasoning with dullards > who insist on ignoring one's point in favor > of bickering over counting the angels on > the head of a pin. This imbecile, Mr. > Kingston, will at the same time complain > that one cannot prove a negative, and he > consistently remarks that the negative is > proved if its reverse is not established by > his many "adversaries" in rgc. It is, to > borrow a phrase, the height of dumbth. > > The poor chap cannot see how he has > repeatedly insisted that others do his > research for him, to back his own wild > claims, often as not, attempting to prove > a negative. I strongly suspect that my > own reaction upon seeing TK refered to > as a "chess historian" was likely much > like the gaffaw experienced by Mr. Parr > in relation to Neil Brennen! This is a > man who cannot -- or rather, refuses to > -- find anything in the literature of chess > he does not wish to see. > > I won't even bother going into the fiasco > that occured when Mr. Kingston unwisely > attempted to think-his-way-through the > wild-eyed accusations of cheating by Mr. > Botvinnik. In a word, flippity-floppity-splat. > LOL > > > -- help bot     Date: 19 Jan 2009 00:19:52 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 19, 12:55=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > To sum up: when these titled pufferies > lay claim to have done a lot of careful > analysis, it actually means they glanced > over a move here and there; grandmasters > it seems, have no idea what real work is, > having never experienced it first-hand... .> -- Greg Kennedy > > =A0 Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of grandmasters One does not envy those liars and fruads; rather, one /pities/ them. > =A0 =A0 =A0The story is a simple one: =A0Greg longed with poignant pining= to > be among those GM "titled pufferies" who would not have to know what > "real work" is; the man did not have the talent to be a puffery; and > the gent has spent a deflated life resenting his station -- an honest > one, moreover -- in life. Interestingly, although Mr. Parr is widely regarded as a liar and "peanut", or nutter, he never fails in pretending that *he* is GM Evans, a man who obviously had real chess talent though overshadowed by the untimely appearance of Bobby Fischer. Against this backdrop of /imagined/ great- ness, Mr. Parr attempts to size-up his innumerable foes, landing squarely on top as GM Evans, in first place. What would Dr. Freud say-- a delusional? > =A0 =A0 =A0 End result: =A0Greg appears here in transparent disguise unde= r > false names (no more chess, help bot) Only those two? What happened to the purported skills in grammatical analysis-- have they vanished? Or sorely dwindled with the onset of old age and its unfortunate ill-effects on the brain. > =A0 =A0 =A0 One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds > it. =A0 Perhaps he is still looking, like that ancient Greek chap who wandered around with a lantern in hand, unsuccessfully seeking an honest man. > Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, and Taylor > Kingston, who gives evidence of having read and who has written > generally fine book reviews. =A0Hence, too, the delicious hissing he > directs, now and then, at GM Larry Evans, whom I dubbed years ago -- > to the intense annoyance of the famous 5-time champion's detractorss > -- the Sage of Reno. I was certain Mr. Parr was going to say the five-time U.S. champ. Few will know that LE now resides in Reno Nevada-- or care, for that matter. Here, once again, is a snippet of what has appeared in rgc several times before, but which seems to be well beyond the mental powers of dullards like Mr. Parr: The idea of "greatness", as it applies to chess, seems absurd to those of us who can think. Although an invisible force can /compel/ an otherwise intelligent man to spend too much time on chess, the fact remains that it is a purely artificial game, with zero real value, in itself. Much as I dislike Mr. Einstein's silly notions regarding the toying around with Time to solve, or dissolve, some other problem created by a mere thought-exper -iment, I agree with him 100% in his sharp criticism of a mental giant literally wasting his intellect on a mere board-game. In view of these facts, it seems to me pre- posterous to /project/ envy onto those who are not and never were professional chess players, if only because of the logical absurdity of envying talents in the most useless field of skill ever devised (outside of an advertising agency)! If one wanted to project such envy, why not invent a more rational, worthy prospect, say, a doctor or a humanitarian? The very concept of envying the typical egomaniacal grandmaster boggles the mind. One need look no further than the articles by The Great Pedant on "the facts about Larry Evans", or Ray Keene, to see that such men are in dire need of help... professional help; that their success across the chess board has somehow led to their own internal decay and destruction. Such men cannot be but pitied. But not all grandmasters have been brought low by thier own imagined self- importance. The worst of the lot, the Bobby Fischers and Gary Kasparovs and Ray Keenes -- world's foremost everything -- draw our attention, but there must be a few rational men out there, somewhere, holding their chess titles loosely, not grasping at them like straws. What was Mr. Parr's title again-- I forgot; oh yes, now I recall: he has none. Is it any wonder then, that he must live vicariously through another, through GM Evans. So sad. So pitiful. -- help bot     Date: 18 Jan 2009 21:55:03 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? THE BILE OF ENVY <To sum up: when these titled pufferies lay claim to have done a lot of careful analysis, it actually means they glanced over a move here and there; grandmasters it seems, have no idea what real work is, having never experienced it first-hand... . > -- Greg Kennedy Greg Kennedy never disappoints in his envy of grandmasters, who are now "titled pufferies" who have "no idea what real work is." Whereas, we are supposed to believe that Greg does know what "real work" is. Odds are, Greg is telling the truth. He does know what real work is, claiming to have spent years putting thigamabobs together or, possibly, taking doohinkees apart on a production line in Indiana. The story is a simple one: Greg longed with poignant pining to be among those GM "titled pufferies" who would not have to know what "real work" is; the man did not have the talent to be a puffery; and the gent has spent a deflated life resenting his station -- an honest one, moreover -- in life. End result: Greg appears here in transparent disguise under false names (no more chess, help bot) spewing the always acrid, even when accurate, bile of envy. One figures that Greg envies accomplishment wherever he finds it. Hence the stupid attacks on Phil Innes, a classicicst, and Taylor Kingston, who gives evidence of having read and who has written generally fine book reviews. Hence, too, the delicious hissing he directs, now and then, at GM Larry Evans, whom I dubbed years ago -- to the intense annoyance of the famous 5-time champion's detractorss -- the Sage of Reno. Our Greg is a bit of work, he is. Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Jan 18, 4:11?pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > ? To sum up: when these titled pufferies > > > lay claim to have done a lot of careful > > > analysis, it actually means they glanced > > > over a move here and there; grandmasters > > > it seems, have no idea what real work is, > > > having never experienced it first-hand... . > > > That is one thing, however true. The real test though is what they do > > when no opinion prevails, and they have to move OTB in average 2.5 > > minutes. There, I suggest to you, they have it. The real test of chess > > is to play by its rules, and in real time. Tal said it, Fischer played > > like that, and I think we owe them at least this. > > > Next day we are all better quarter backs, but in 2.5 minutes we suck > > more than they do, no? > > > I should hope that, being /professional/ chess > players, these puffy grandmasters can somehow > manage to best mere amateurs OTB. > > But there is another realm of chess, in which > the pufferies, the GMs mainly, fall down, and > that is the realm of objective analysis via hard > work and careful thought. > > We saw this with the numerous corrections > sent in to Mr. Evans, month after month. We > saw it much more with the advent of stupid > machines, operated by curious amateurs who, > despite their utter lack of chess understanding, > poked holes in the published-for-profit works of > many, many grandmasters by simply doing > their homework! > > You see my boy, it is not all about who wins > 1st through 4th at the New York Open. Many > of these amateurs are not in it for the money, > nor to puff-up their own egos, but rather, they > are in it for the love of the game. > > > -- help bot   Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:09:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. On Jan 15, 1:00=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 Er, that shouldda been "freezing point" is > > zero degrees centigrade/ 32 farenheit; a > > good thing, too. > rubbish! why would you be wanting to freeze water at sea level - i > never heard anything so crazy. The polar bears; they need snow, ice and all that rot, to walk around on, and to rest upon when crossing the Atlantic, hunting for seals. The thing is, they don't know how-- to freeze the water, I mean. Nobody ever bothered to show them. > > =A0If you go atop Mt. Everest, > You are talking to an old alpine climber here Amateur! I'm not talkign about climbing the pretend mountains, but REALLY BIG ones, as are found mainly in the Himalayas. > > > Anyway, the comparison above is inept because the temperature scale i= s > > > linear, whereas Elo distribution is not. right? > > =A0 Wrong. =A0 Distribution is not comaparable to > > scale. =A0 You see, a ratings-distribution chart > > will take the form of a bell-shaped curve, > haha! I thought 'he's making a great point' until I noticed we were > comparing chalk and cheese. I wasn't talking distribution of points, > but the non-linearity of the scale itself upon which players are > distributed I don't follow. The mathematicians (evil swine) who came up with this stuff laid it all out so that, say, a 200 point difference at your middle level is fundamentally no different from a 200 point difference at the very top (Rybka) or at the very bottom (think Sanny). You can live in de Nile, but there are big hippos and crocs in there! A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the readers of Chess Lies magazine used to write in asking about this all the time; it had to be explained /over and over/, because they just couldn't believe it. What they /wanted/ to believe was that somewhere up top, there were chess gods (i.e. Murican grandmasters) who ate honey and drank wine, and who were so far above the rest of us they were out of reach, like the stars in your distant galaxy. > once again you conflate two scales, digital and analog, which obvious > to any algebramatician cannot be combined, and you have to go to > absolute zero to find the right benchmark at sea level - and this is > why i referred serious people to the Traxler thread, since it > discusses Absolute-Elo There is no such thing as absolute Elo; there are only twenty or thirty different tries by insane mathematicians, each of which generates different ratings from basically the same set of game results. Now, what does this tell us? That's right: that all mathematicians are crazy! > In short, he had one good idea in his whole life, foolishly offered it > to chess politicians to deploy from their own understanding of > crossing safe ice over monstrous water, and being disappointed gave up > being serious and got into retrogrades, astrology, and non-measurement > systems. I see nothing wrong with retrograde analysis, so long as it is done in such a way as to NOT incorporate personal biases, and none of the usual "tweaking" is done to make the results come out to match preconceived ideas. In fact, the only idea I want to see factored in is the simple fact that we now know more theory than in the old days. That is to say, I know from having studied those oldtimers that some of their ideas are okay, and some are rubbish. I also know a lot more from having had the opportunity of being humiliated by numerous chess computers-- a humbling experience of which they were, quite sadly, deprived. Maybe one day the Encyclopedia Brittanica will publish an "authoritative" list of every serious chess game ever played; then we can have someone competent (not those blasted mathematicians!) punch them all in and run some sort of ratings program which objectively spits out numbers for us to ponder. Or maybe some day someone will figure out a reliable way to judge chess moves, and all the serious games can be entered and we can see what pops out. But as for this crazy Nunnsuch character-- he can't be trusted; caught red-handed changing Mr. Fischer's analysis, he denied even knowing the man-- said he never heard of Bobby Fischer, or chess, and was just minding his own business when along came these accusations, from out of nowhere! What a loon... . -- help bot   Date: 15 Jan 2009 10:00:29 From: Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. On Jan 15, 9:40=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 15, 8:16=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > by the way, you shouldn't have told our antipodean friend that there > > are sharks in lake placid, i looked it up, and about the worst you can > > get is a nasty batch of leaches, like humphrey bogart in the african > > queen - but you can't get her in the boat! > > =A0 =A0Hmm... looks like you must have missed the > movie called "Lake Placid"; it starred a rather > large crocodilian, which snacked on cows, > brown bears and suchlike. in short, a republican > =A0 (Of course, if he > were really hungry, he might munch a Loch > Ness monster or a giant squid.) a palin republican! > > > > Here is our local forecast for the next few days. Currently 0F or > > -18C. The Temperature below is on the Fahrenheit-Elo scale. > > > Today: A chance of light snow, mainly before noon. Cloudy, then > > gradually becoming mostly sunny, with a high near 12. Wind chill > > values as low as -8. North wind between 3 and 6 mph. Chance of > > precipitation is 40%. Total daytime snow accumulation of less than a > > half inch possible. > > > Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around -9. Wind chill values as low > > as -19. West wind between 3 and 6 mph. > > > Friday: Mostly sunny and cold, with a high near 9. Wind chill values > > as low as -20. West wind between 5 and 8 mph. > > > Friday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around -7. Wind chill values > > as low as -16. West wind between 3 and 6 mph. > > > Saturday: Partly sunny, with a high near 17. Southwest wind between 3 > > and 5 mph. > > > Saturday Night: A chance of snow, mainly after 9pm. Mostly cloudy, > > with a low around 3. Chance of precipitation is 40%. > > =A0 =A0It seems you Vermontians are being > cheated when it comes to gale-force winds. > How about I make a call, and get this fixed > for you, eh? =A0 I've got a direct line to the > chap upstairs (but last time I rang 'im up > to get my stock market losses back, he > just laughed at me and hung up). Its not too bad down here in the south, maybe only -18 tonight, but the radio says up north at Island Pond it might be -38 [that's not windchill] > > > =A0 Okay. =A0 The main thing to remember is the > > > boiling point of water at sea level, which is > > > zero degrees centigrade and thirty-two > > > degrees farenheit (or Farenheit, as in "Elo", > > > which is capitalized because the term is > > > derrived from a famous name). =A0 Why this is > > > so I have no idea, for never in my long life > > > have I seen anyone actually boil water at > > > sea level... . > > This is actually a fascinating point, it stands to reason that if the > > boiling water > > is at sea level then the sea would put the fire out which is beneath > > the pot, > > therefore it would never boil. > > =A0 Er, that shouldda been "freezing point" is > zero degrees centigrade/ 32 farenheit; a > good thing, too. rubbish! why would you be wanting to freeze water at sea level - i never heard anything so crazy. > > Maybe Taylor Kingston Big Universal Book of Free Facts, [BUBOFF!], can > > explain how - or even who would do this? Its so improbable that its > > likely one of those urban myth things, like crocodiles under New York > > City. Stands to reason that water doesn't care where it is, and its > > just subjective humans to whom it /seems/ to take longer, and so. Pure > > psychology. > > =A0 Um, no. =A0 It has to do with pressure. Psychological pressure? An intense internal compulsion to behave in a certain way? > =A0If you > go atop Mt. Everest, You are talking to an old alpine climber here > you will find that water > boils very easily; No you wont - you'll bloody freeze to death up there long before it boils. More likely your paraffin stove paraffin will simply freeze - then you need other heat to warm the paraffin to warm the water... sounds far too long to hang out on the hill essentially you have confused mini-bars which you find in lonely hotel rooms, with millibars which you find mysteriously suspended in the sky > you may also find that yer > fingers and toes freeze at the same time, > which is a bit of a mystery. > > > Anyway, the comparison above is inept because the temperature scale is > > linear, whereas Elo distribution is not. right? > > =A0 Wrong. =A0 Distribution is not comaparable to > scale. =A0 You see, a ratings-distribution chart > will take the form of a bell-shaped curve, haha! I thought 'he's making a great point' until I noticed we were comparing chalk and cheese. I wasn't talking distribution of points, but the non-linearity of the scale itself upon which players are distributed > while the temperature scale is dead-on flat, > like a chess board; not a roll-up vinyl one, > but one of those that doesn't curl up-- say > a marble chess board. > > > =A0You can easily prove this mathematically at home by playing 2 x 1300 > > players simultaneously - because you win doesn't mean you are a 2600 > > player. Secondly not even seven 1900 players =3D one 2200 player. > > =A0 Here in Indiana, it only takes two 1900 players > to weigh as much as a 2200 player. =A0 Come to > think of it, a few of those pesky youngsters > may well be 2200s, yet weigh in at under 200 > pounds sterling. once again you conflate two scales, digital and analog, which obvious to any algebramatician cannot be combined, and you have to go to absolute zero to find the right benchmark at sea level - and this is why i referred serious people to the Traxler thread, since it discusses Absolute-Elo > > What the effect of elevation on boiling water or the draw rate has on > > Elo, the professor himself did not share. > > =A0 He was clearly out of his depth there. =A0Like > all those careless swimmers, one needs a > certain "tactical awareness" when swimming > with sharks, squid, Nessies and big crocs. In short, he had one good idea in his whole life, foolishly offered it to chess politicians to deploy from their own understanding of crossing safe ice over monstrous water, and being disappointed gave up being serious and got into retrogrades, astrology, and non-measurement systems. > =A0 At the time a famous TV personality was > killed by a sting ray, I read on Wikipedia > that the critters were not really dangerous at > all, 'cause they "rarely" got you except on a > leg or an arm, and you just rush off to > hospital and they fix you right up! =A0 Poor sap > never saw it coming-- a big one stung him > right in the heart and he was kaput... . Happens to King's Indian players all the time. GMs laugh about it, well... feeling sorry for themselves they say 'can't even beat the King's Indian these days.' OK? Have an ice day. Phil > =A0 -- help bot   Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:40:55 From: help bot Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. On Jan 15, 8:16=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > by the way, you shouldn't have told our antipodean friend that there > are sharks in lake placid, i looked it up, and about the worst you can > get is a nasty batch of leaches, like humphrey bogart in the african > queen - but you can't get her in the boat! Hmm... looks like you must have missed the movie called "Lake Placid"; it starred a rather large crocodilian, which snacked on cows, brown bears and suchlike. (Of course, if he were really hungry, he might munch a Loch Ness monster or a giant squid.) > Here is our local forecast for the next few days. Currently 0F or > -18C. The Temperature below is on the Fahrenheit-Elo scale. > > Today: A chance of light snow, mainly before noon. Cloudy, then > gradually becoming mostly sunny, with a high near 12. Wind chill > values as low as -8. North wind between 3 and 6 mph. Chance of > precipitation is 40%. Total daytime snow accumulation of less than a > half inch possible. > > Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around -9. Wind chill values as low > as -19. West wind between 3 and 6 mph. > > Friday: Mostly sunny and cold, with a high near 9. Wind chill values > as low as -20. West wind between 5 and 8 mph. > > Friday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around -7. Wind chill values > as low as -16. West wind between 3 and 6 mph. > > Saturday: Partly sunny, with a high near 17. Southwest wind between 3 > and 5 mph. > > Saturday Night: A chance of snow, mainly after 9pm. Mostly cloudy, > with a low around 3. Chance of precipitation is 40%. It seems you Vermontians are being cheated when it comes to gale-force winds. How about I make a call, and get this fixed for you, eh? I've got a direct line to the chap upstairs (but last time I rang 'im up to get my stock market losses back, he just laughed at me and hung up). > > =A0 Okay. =A0 The main thing to remember is the > > boiling point of water at sea level, which is > > zero degrees centigrade and thirty-two > > degrees farenheit (or Farenheit, as in "Elo", > > which is capitalized because the term is > > derrived from a famous name). =A0 Why this is > > so I have no idea, for never in my long life > > have I seen anyone actually boil water at > > sea level... . > This is actually a fascinating point, it stands to reason that if the > boiling water > is at sea level then the sea would put the fire out which is beneath > the pot, > therefore it would never boil. Er, that shouldda been "freezing point" is zero degrees centigrade/ 32 farenheit; a good thing, too. > Maybe Taylor Kingston Big Universal Book of Free Facts, [BUBOFF!], can > explain how - or even who would do this? Its so improbable that its > likely one of those urban myth things, like crocodiles under New York > City. Stands to reason that water doesn't care where it is, and its > just subjective humans to whom it /seems/ to take longer, and so. Pure > psychology. Um, no. It has to do with pressure. If you go atop Mt. Everest, you will find that water boils very easily; you may also find that yer fingers and toes freeze at the same time, which is a bit of a mystery. > Anyway, the comparison above is inept because the temperature scale is > linear, whereas Elo distribution is not. right? Wrong. Distribution is not comaparable to scale. You see, a ratings-distribution chart will take the form of a bell-shaped curve, while the temperature scale is dead-on flat, like a chess board; not a roll-up vinyl one, but one of those that doesn't curl up-- say a marble chess board. > =A0You can easily prove this mathematically at home by playing 2 x 1300 > players simultaneously - because you win doesn't mean you are a 2600 > player. Secondly not even seven 1900 players =3D one 2200 player. Here in Indiana, it only takes two 1900 players to weigh as much as a 2200 player. Come to think of it, a few of those pesky youngsters may well be 2200s, yet weigh in at under 200 pounds sterling. > What the effect of elevation on boiling water or the draw rate has on > Elo, the professor himself did not share. He was clearly out of his depth there. Like all those careless swimmers, one needs a certain "tactical awareness" when swimming with sharks, squid, Nessies and big crocs. At the time a famous TV personality was killed by a sting ray, I read on Wikipedia that the critters were not really dangerous at all, 'cause they "rarely" got you except on a leg or an arm, and you just rush off to hospital and they fix you right up! Poor sap never saw it coming-- a big one stung him right in the heart and he was kaput... . -- help bot   Date: 15 Jan 2009 05:16:54 From: Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. > > > [like grizzlys but smaller, and brown] > > =A0 Um, Dr. IMnes: grizzlies are often brown. I never said they were not :) > The general distinction is between the less > dangerous** "black" bear, and their larger > cousins, the brown bears and grizzlies. by the way, you shouldn't have told our antipodean friend that there are sharks in lake placid, i looked it up, and about the worst you can get is a nasty batch of leaches, like humphrey bogart in the african queen - but you can't get her in the boat! > > One thang that disturbs me & the other bears even more than the stupidl= y > > disguised goldilocks ever did is how come -30f ~ -35c.. > > =A0 That bothered me, too. =A0 I suspected that > it was just another of Dr. IMnes' innumerable > miscalculations. > > > Logic would seem to dictate other buthttp://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.ht= mconfirmsit as some inscrutable > > meteorological factoid.. Here is our local forecast for the next few days. Currently 0F or -18C. The Temperature below is on the Fahrenheit-Elo scale. Today: A chance of light snow, mainly before noon. Cloudy, then gradually becoming mostly sunny, with a high near 12. Wind chill values as low as -8. North wind between 3 and 6 mph. Chance of precipitation is 40%. Total daytime snow accumulation of less than a half inch possible. Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around -9. Wind chill values as low as -19. West wind between 3 and 6 mph. Friday: Mostly sunny and cold, with a high near 9. Wind chill values as low as -20. West wind between 5 and 8 mph. Friday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around -7. Wind chill values as low as -16. West wind between 3 and 6 mph. Saturday: Partly sunny, with a high near 17. Southwest wind between 3 and 5 mph. Saturday Night: A chance of snow, mainly after 9pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 3. Chance of precipitation is 40%. > =A0 Okay. =A0 The main thing to remember is the > boiling point of water at sea level, which is > zero degrees centigrade and thirty-two > degrees farenheit (or Farenheit, as in "Elo", > which is capitalized because the term is > derrived from a famous name). =A0 Why this is > so I have no idea, for never in my long life > have I seen anyone actually boil water at > sea level... . This is actually a fascinating point, it stands to reason that if the boiling water is at sea level then the sea would put the fire out which is beneath the pot, therefore it would never boil. Maybe Taylor Kingston Big Universal Book of Free Facts, [BUBOFF!], can explain how - or even who would do this? Its so improbable that its likely one of those urban myth things, like crocodiles under New York City. Stands to reason that water doesn't care where it is, and its just subjective humans to whom it /seems/ to take longer, and so. Pure psychology. Anyway, the comparison above is inept because the temperature scale is linear, whereas Elo distribution is not. right? You can easily prove this mathematically at home by playing 2 x 1300 players simultaneously - because you win doesn't mean you are a 2600 player. Secondly not even seven 1900 players =3D one 2200 player. What the effect of elevation on boiling water or the draw rate has on Elo, the professor himself did not share. Phil Innes > =A0 -- help bot   Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:51:59 From: Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. On Jan 15, 2:05=A0am, madams <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > . > > > > > you stupid english foreigner! -30f [about -35 celcius] is no bloody > > joke! that's like frost bite in 10 minutes for exposed skin. > > Is it really?.. > > Goodness! - how fwightfully insensitive, callow & unforgivably fwivolous > of me to poke fun @ you poor possums shivering away in your burrows - as > it were, & no daffies, blue-bells or snowies to herald an end to this > 4mth. white-out you say & all the time having to contend with tornadoes, > cyclones, floods (heidi ho bot), earthquakes, alien invasions & other > little eruptions beats me how anything ever gets done in the good 'ol > USA apart from disaster relief.. > > No fil, you & I as dinki-di expats. must perforce ponder [!] mind your alliterative nuances in front of the cousins, > with extreme > rue & prejudice what exactly it was we left behind in the dear old dart > & blighty white cliffs - no?.. ugly caravans and bungalows everywhere blighting the blighty cliffs > Over here, which is a celsius continent btw, it's a mere 30degrees (86f) > so I'm going for a swim in a shark proof bay. These sharks have been > unusually active this year, something not noticed for the last 100yrs or > so, so it's probably a cyclical thing.. its probably because no one survived to report it ! but - do i write this message too late? > Usually some poor sod gets 'taken' & that's about it but that's already > happened to a 50yr something stoic, ripped in two, no remains found, 15' > pointer etc. but then there are these other attacks by bull & tiger > sharks coming in close & ripping the living flesh of innocent surfies - > doesn't bear thinking about when you're paddling about in waist high > turquoise.. we don't really have many sharks in vermont, so swimming is much safer here for example, rivers 'defrost' by june and then you can get in until september only dangerous animals as such are land ones now and again a moose will run through town followed by nervous cops [who don't want to nab it] and an occasional bear in the woods > > currently > > the upper midwest is getting it, [people told not to go outside, etc] > > and all that weather heads this way. technically my vermont colleague > > in chess is in a different bio-region than me - and gets Champlain > > river valley and St Lawrence weather, and here its Connecticut river > > weather plus 'mountain effect' > > The Alberta (something) - no?.. is that a song, something about alberta? lay down your head, alberta? no... the mountains are green because that's what color they are when they're not white, besides there are already white mountains > > so sure we have cabin fever! winter only started 6 weeks ago, and will > > continue at least 2 and half months. no bleeding January daffodils > > push their way out of the bosky soil here mate, the soil is frozen to > > about 3 feet down, which in turn is covered in 3 feet of snow > > Horrendous!.. > > > watch your face or we'll both turn on you like angry brown bears > > Even worse.. > > > robbed of their croust > > Croust?.. cornish word for 'lunch' or 'snack' could be spelled krowst ? > > [like grizzlys but smaller, and brown] which > > otherwise are peaceably hibernating and no harm to no cove > > One thang that disturbs me & the other bears even more than the stupidly > disguised goldilocks ever did is how come -30f ~ -35c.. > > Logic would seem to dictate other buthttp://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.htmc= onfirms it as some inscrutable > meteorological factoid.. > > Dactoid that factoid Mr. hemroid - ok mate.. A para-dactoid is a little known but large flying duck-like creature with big teeth from way back. Did you know that there is a dino museum here in the states with a selection of dinos and some have saddles on! its no joke either, some people believe that. course, did you know that your shark was also a land animal for a tim - apparently all aquatic beasts came ashore at some time or other, some liked it, stayed, others thought 'sod this for a game of charlies' and got back in the briny > > what's it like where you are? 42f and wet, damp, grey ['gray'] and > > equally miserable? if you are on the east coat this is the time of > > year that vampires like to come from across the way on creaky old > > barkies with a box or two of old country soil and set up shop in the > > abandoned rectory - watch your arse, mate, and your neck too. > > I say old boy, if that cabin-rash gets any worse do be sure to call in > the heli-doc there's a good chap.. I'll make a note of it. Didn't you once have a parrot? I forget. But no... that was someone else, and it wasn't me asking either. Must have been two other guys. Phil > All the best now.. > > Syd Charisse. > > > > > cordially, neil gaiman   Date: 14 Jan 2009 23:55:26 From: help bot Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. On Jan 15, 2:05=A0am, madams <[email protected] > wrote: > Goodness! - how fwightfully insensitive, callow & unforgivably fwivolous > of me to poke fun @ you poor possums shivering away in your burrows - as > it were, & no daffies, blue-bells or snowies to herald an end to this > 4mth. white-out you say & all the time having to contend with tornadoes, > cyclones, floods (heidi ho bot), earthquakes, alien invasions & other > little eruptions beats me how anything ever gets done in the good 'ol > USA apart from disaster relief.. Are you kidding? Last time I saw the president on TV, he was whining about folks who claimed the feds had messed up disaster-relief in New Orleans. You see, 90% of all such efforts are funneled into imperialistic wars (likely 'cause the Arabs for some reason won't sell us their oil-rich lands). > No fil, you & I as dinki-di expats. must perforce ponder with extreme > rue & prejudice what exactly it was we left behind in the dear old dart > & blighty white cliffs - no?.. If it's mild weather you are a-missin', don't sweat it, for soon a thing they call "global warming" will fix all that; all those island countries -- with their milder weather -- will soon be under water, along with Florida and parts of California. > Over here, which is a celsius continent btw, it's a mere 30degrees (86f) > so I'm going for a swim in a shark proof bay. These sharks have been > unusually active this year, something not noticed for the last 100yrs or > so, so it's probably a cyclical thing.. Don't be naive! The cycle is that of the giant squids, which occasionally migrate in search of bigger prey (like say, whales or small ships). > Usually some poor sod gets 'taken' & that's about it but that's already > happened to a 50yr something stoic, ripped in two, no remains found, 15' > pointer etc. but then there are these other attacks by bull & tiger > sharks coming in close & ripping the living flesh of innocent surfies - > doesn't bear thinking about when you're paddling about in waist high > turquoise.. I wouldn't worry too much about bulls and tigers; it is the great whites that really draw in the big ones-- the colossal squids and their only natural enemy, the *so-called* "prehistoric" crocodiles. (Ever visit Lake Placid?) > > so sure we have cabin fever! winter only started 6 weeks ago, and will > > continue at least 2 and half months. no bleeding January daffodils > > push their way out of the bosky soil here mate, the soil is frozen to > > about 3 feet down, which in turn is covered in 3 feet of snow I'm sure that is just another "whopper" of a tale Dr. IMnes is telling us. The soil does not really freeze deep down in the Noreastern USA. > > watch your face or we'll both turn on you like angry brown bears > > Even worse.. > > > robbed of their croust > > Croust?.. An obvious typo for "salmon". > > [like grizzlys but smaller, and brown] Um, Dr. IMnes: grizzlies are often brown. The general distinction is between the less dangerous** "black" bear, and their larger cousins, the brown bears and grizzlies. **Of course, if people take the smaller bears lightly, thinking they, like dogs, pose little threat, the result can be very similar to an encounter with an angry grizzly, except the relatives will have more corpse left to bury. > One thang that disturbs me & the other bears even more than the stupidly > disguised goldilocks ever did is how come -30f ~ -35c.. That bothered me, too. I suspected that it was just another of Dr. IMnes' innumerable miscalculations. > Logic would seem to dictate other buthttp://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.htmc= onfirms it as some inscrutable > meteorological factoid.. Okay. The main thing to remember is the boiling point of water at sea level, which is zero degrees centigrade and thirty-two degrees farenheit (or Farenheit, as in "Elo", which is capitalized because the term is derrived from a famous name). Why this is so I have no idea, for never in my long life have I seen anyone actually boil water at sea level... . -- help bot   Date: 15 Jan 2009 18:05:35 From: madams Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. [email protected] wrote: . > > you stupid english foreigner! -30f [about -35 celcius] is no bloody > joke! that's like frost bite in 10 minutes for exposed skin. Is it really?.. Goodness! - how fwightfully insensitive, callow & unforgivably fwivolous of me to poke fun @ you poor possums shivering away in your burrows - as it were, & no daffies, blue-bells or snowies to herald an end to this 4mth. white-out you say & all the time having to contend with tornadoes, cyclones, floods (heidi ho bot), earthquakes, alien invasions & other little eruptions beats me how anything ever gets done in the good 'ol USA apart from disaster relief.. No fil, you & I as dinki-di expats. must perforce ponder with extreme rue & prejudice what exactly it was we left behind in the dear old dart & blighty white cliffs - no?.. Over here, which is a celsius continent btw, it's a mere 30degrees (86f) so I'm going for a swim in a shark proof bay. These sharks have been unusually active this year, something not noticed for the last 100yrs or so, so it's probably a cyclical thing.. Usually some poor sod gets 'taken' & that's about it but that's already happened to a 50yr something stoic, ripped in two, no remains found, 15' pointer etc. but then there are these other attacks by bull & tiger sharks coming in close & ripping the living flesh of innocent surfies - doesn't bear thinking about when you're paddling about in waist high turquoise.. > currently > the upper midwest is getting it, [people told not to go outside, etc] > and all that weather heads this way. technically my vermont colleague > in chess is in a different bio-region than me - and gets Champlain > river valley and St Lawrence weather, and here its Connecticut river > weather plus 'mountain effect' The Alberta (something) - no?.. > so sure we have cabin fever! winter only started 6 weeks ago, and will > continue at least 2 and half months. no bleeding January daffodils > push their way out of the bosky soil here mate, the soil is frozen to > about 3 feet down, which in turn is covered in 3 feet of snow Horrendous!.. > watch your face or we'll both turn on you like angry brown bears Even worse.. > robbed of their croust Croust?.. > [like grizzlys but smaller, and brown] which > otherwise are peaceably hibernating and no harm to no cove One thang that disturbs me & the other bears even more than the stupidly disguised goldilocks ever did is how come -30f ~ -35c.. Logic would seem to dictate other but http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.htm confirms it as some inscrutable meteorological factoid.. Dactoid that factoid Mr. hemroid - ok mate.. > what's it like where you are? 42f and wet, damp, grey ['gray'] and > equally miserable? if you are on the east coat this is the time of > year that vampires like to come from across the way on creaky old > barkies with a box or two of old country soil and set up shop in the > abandoned rectory - watch your arse, mate, and your neck too. I say old boy, if that cabin-rash gets any worse do be sure to call in the heli-doc there's a good chap.. All the best now.. Syd Charisse. > > cordially, neil gaiman   Date: 14 Jan 2009 07:00:58 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 14, 8:40=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 14, 1:51=A0am, Poutnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > In article <81a61f88-ff08-4b3d-8b50- > > [email protected]>, > > [email protected] says...> > > > Bobby Fisher showed what he showed. > > What he did not, it is useless speculation. > > > Joking: Maybe because America does/did not have big chess players, > > he is little pushed..... /Joking > > > When Philip the Macedonian ( father of Alexander the Great ) > > swallowed Greece and claimed his army can run through Sparta, > > > he got just a simple answer: "IF" > > > Macedonians did let Sparta be and went to conquer Persia. =A0 > > =A0 I believe you may have garbled that story. The way I heard it was > that Philip sent a letter to the Laconians, not the Spartans, saying > something to the effect of "If I invade your country, I will lay waste > to your lands, kill your men and enslave your women." The Laconians > sent back the one-word reply "If." > =A0 Today the word "laconian" signifies an extreme economy of words, > saying much with little. Whether this story is the original basis for > that usage, or if the story is even true, I can't say. It looks like I must correct myself. I should have said "laconic" rather than "laconian" (I actually knew that, but the morning coffee hadn't kicked in yet). More to the point, it appears Laconia and Sparta are more or less synonymous, Laconia being the region surrounding the city of Sparta in ancient Greece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic So Mr. Poutnik's account was basically accurate. The Wikipedia article gives many examples of laconic wit, including the "if" response to King Philip.   Date: 14 Jan 2009 05:40:17 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 14, 1:51=A0am, Poutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > In article <81a61f88-ff08-4b3d-8b50- > [email protected]>, > [email protected] says...> > > Bobby Fisher showed what he showed. > What he did not, it is useless speculation. > > Joking: Maybe because America does/did not have big chess players, > he is little pushed..... /Joking > > When Philip the Macedonian ( father of Alexander the Great ) > swallowed Greece and claimed his army can run through Sparta, > > he got just a simple answer: "IF" > > Macedonians did let Sparta be and went to conquer Persia. =A0 I believe you may have garbled that story. The way I heard it was that Philip sent a letter to the Laconians, not the Spartans, saying something to the effect of "If I invade your country, I will lay waste to your lands, kill your men and enslave your women." The Laconians sent back the one-word reply "If." Today the word "laconian" signifies an extreme economy of words, saying much with little. Whether this story is the original basis for that usage, or if the story is even true, I can't say.   Date: 14 Jan 2009 01:39:46 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bobby_Fischer.jpg   Date: 13 Jan 2009 23:06:56 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 14, 1:33=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 In the most obvious example, Mr. Fischer's > > name appears on listings of top "players" from > > years in which he did not actually "play" chess > > -- a self-evident blunder which bumps nearly all > > other players down a notch, thus mucking up > > /their rankings/. > This, of course, is not a blunder. Any ranking > system has to deal with varying levels of inactivity, > of which inactivity is a special case. One notes the utter inability to think-- let alone think clearly. My earlier comments pointed out that several deceased players were still being ranked among the living-- those who actually play chess-- thus mucking up everyone's rankings. The case of BF is no different; as we now know with perfect hindsight, he was not among those who played chess, and thus his being listed at or near the top messed up the rankings of everybody else except perhaps Gary Kasparov (and Deep Blue). One need not drop Mr. Fischer from every list-- his rabid fans can still be appeased by keeping him on the lists of all-time rankings and such; but he clearly does not belong on any list of /active players/ beyond the year 1972, except if his 1992 match were rated, and then only for a moment. Please note that I do not deny the fact that many lunatics DESIRED him to be a chess player-- but this is another matter entirely from actually playing the game. > CM's method is clearly described So were Mr. Kingston's idiotic methods! LOL > (and parenthetically a vast improvement over Elo). "Two wrongs make a right" is just bad math. As the chart CM itself presented showed, their claimed margin of superior "accuracy" was quite small indeed; the chart showed that in the case of several of the most famous players, their claim was to be /less accurate/ than Elo. As I have already pointed out, all it takes to beat Elo is to factor the colors, white and black, into the equation-- even a child could do it; even Mr. Kingston might somehow manage it; it's not a great feat, worthy of bragging about. > But our dim bulb Mr. bot is likely not capable > of dealing with the issue intelligently, so he lashes > out pathetically and randomly, broadcasting his > own mental shortcomings. Ad hom. symptoms getting worse; must be a terminal case. Hopefully, a post mortem will resolve all our questions regarding the origin and spread of this dread disease. It turned out that a very famous scientist had a rather unusual brain, which might help to explain how or why he did not follow the mundane thinking-patterns of his fellow workers. Maybe these ad hominists are similar? Maybe they all share some defect or other, which can account for their severe troubles, their extreme tendency toward avoiding rational discussion? One can only wait, and hope for a cure... . -- help bot   Date: 14 Jan 2009 07:51:13 From: Poutnik Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? In article <81a61f88-ff08-4b3d-8b50- [email protected] >, [email protected] says... > Bobby Fisher showed what he showed. What he did not, it is useless speculation. Joking: Maybe because America does/did not have big chess players, he is little pushed..... /Joking When Philip the Macedonian ( father of Alexander the Great ) swallowed Greece and claimed his army can run through Sparta, he got just a simple answer: "IF" Macedonians did let Sparta be and went to conquer Persia. -- Poutnik   Date: 13 Jan 2009 22:33:15 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 12, 11:06=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 13, 1:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 In the most obvious example, Mr. Fischer's > name appears on listings of top "players" from > years in which he did not actually "play" chess > -- a self-evident blunder which bumps nearly all > other players down a notch, thus mucking up > /their rankings/. This, of course, is not a blunder. Any ranking system has to deal with varying levels of inactivity, of which inactivity is a special case. CM's method is clearly described (and parenthetically a vast improvement over Elo). But our dim bulb Mr. bot is likely not capable of dealing with the issue intelligently, so he lashes out pathetically and randomly, broadcasting his own mental shortcomings. > =A0 As a matter of fact, in a rare instance of clear > thinking, Mr. Kingston pointed out the widely > varying results which these statisticians can > achieve; considering that certain "standard" > references exist which list the results of chess > events going back a century and more, this > would seem to indicate some toying around > by the statisticians, I think-- toying which is > undoubtedly influenced by personal bias and > expectations. That is a theoretical possiblity. However, in the case of Chessmetrics at least one goal has been to outpredict FIDE Elo ratings. If someone wants to post intelligently on the different methodologies, I'll be an eager reader. But he should be aware that he will likely have to endure the mindless and ignorant carping of help bot.   Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:34:22 From: Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. On Jan 13, 2:37=A0pm, madams <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > . > > > > =A0 First, how about you show us this alleged Morphy survey by Nunn? > > > No. Mr. Kingston. I will show you nothing since you are not interested > > in what you ask about - not in this, nor in any subject. You merely > > want to posture on usenet. I need no conditions from you to recommend > > my own idea of study - and if you ain't interested in it, buizz off! > > I say chaps! - is cabin-fever a ketching thang up thar in 't frozen > north?.. > > North to alaska - whoa ho!.. > > m. you stupid english foreigner! -30f [about -35 celcius] is no bloody joke! that's like frost bite in 10 minutes for exposed skin. currently the upper midwest is getting it, [people told not to go outside, etc] and all that weather heads this way. technically my vermont colleague in chess is in a different bio-region than me - and gets Champlain river valley and St Lawrence weather, and here its Connecticut river weather plus 'mountain effect' so sure we have cabin fever! winter only started 6 weeks ago, and will continue at least 2 and half months. no bleeding January daffodils push their way out of the bosky soil here mate, the soil is frozen to about 3 feet down, which in turn is covered in 3 feet of snow watch your face or we'll both turn on you like angry brown bears robbed of their croust [like grizzlys but smaller, and brown] which otherwise are peaceably hibernating and no harm to no cove what's it like where you are? 42f and wet, damp, grey ['gray'] and equally miserable? if you are on the east coat this is the time of year that vampires like to come from across the way on creaky old barkies with a box or two of old country soil and set up shop in the abandoned rectory - watch your arse, mate, and your neck too. cordially, neil gaiman   Date: 14 Jan 2009 06:37:45 From: madams Subject: Re: Cabin fever anyone?.. [email protected] wrote: . > > First, how about you show us this alleged Morphy survey by Nunn? > > No. Mr. Kingston. I will show you nothing since you are not interested > in what you ask about - not in this, nor in any subject. You merely > want to posture on usenet. I need no conditions from you to recommend > my own idea of study - and if you ain't interested in it, buizz off! I say chaps! - is cabin-fever a ketching thang up thar in 't frozen north?.. North to alaska - whoa ho!.. m.   Date: 14 Jan 2009 06:00:05 From: madams Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest [email protected] wrote: . > Since he is perhaps criticized for his views, I take his own answers > to be in the spirit of exploring the topic, and far from anything > definitive. So, in short - Nunn is full of it.. Why do these 2nd tier GM's insist on pulling down the greats of the game?.. Could jealousy or envy be a factor here? I mean, you don't hear GK for example coming out with words to the effect that; according to my own special formula plus of course the ministrations of good 'ol fritzy here it can conclusively be shown that Morphy was but a pissy little 2300 player - nyeh nyeh nyeh.. m.   Date: 13 Jan 2009 04:47:33 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 13, 1:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 12, 8:48=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > That it predicts results better than > > > Elo is not surprising to me. > > > =A0 An interesting delusion, for not even the folks > > at chessmetrics have dared to claim such a > > sweeping thing as that. > > "I can now confidently say that the Chessmetrics ratings work better > than the FIDE ratings at predicting the results of future games, and > thus the Chessmetrics ratings are more accurate than the FIDE ratings > at estimating the true level of skill of chess players."http://db.chessme= trics.com/Documents/AboutSystem.htm > > You should not be ashamed that you cannot follow technical or > mathematical arguments. Not everybody has the training or mental > capacity for it. But that you cannot understand written English is > something to be ashamed of. Or are you just a liar? Its not that. Facts are simply relegated to fetishistic icons to adorn one's status in the newsgroup tribal village. As such they any cogent sequence. The way to engage people here is to ask them what depends on answering their questions. ie, are people actually sharing information, perspectives and ideas - or do they insist that one view, and only one [their on] can exist at any time? People who cannot say what it means to them are therefore a bit naive about process - and if you are not conscious of 'facts' being the result of process, then what else can you do but deny others who do see that? Like XPR ratings, Chessmetrics do NOT seem to be the last word in anything - but they are new words, so to speak, and likely to resolve our understanding more than the pap that has existed heretofore. Phil Innes   Date: 12 Jan 2009 23:06:11 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 13, 1:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > "I can now confidently say that the Chessmetrics ratings work better > than the FIDE ratings at predicting the results of future games, and > thus the Chessmetrics ratings are more accurate than the FIDE ratings > at estimating the true level of skill of chess players. I stand corrected. > You should not be ashamed that you cannot follow technical or > mathematical arguments. Not everybody has the training or mental > capacity for it. But that you cannot understand written English is > something to be ashamed of. Or are you just a liar? Ad hominem tendency was already noted; this further obsession with ad hominization leads one to wonder if the disease is progressively getting worse. : >( All my other points were "cleverly" snipped, just as they were the first time around; perhaps the ignoramus has somehow convinced himself that snipping amounts to the same thing as refutation? (This would hardly be surprising.) --- When I read that paragraph that the first time, it seemed quite natural that after asserting the superior prediction of results, the follow-on would and should be an enumeration of predictions and results, verifying the claim. Instead, readers are treated to a table in which a simple "400 points" formula is compared to the CM and Elo methods. While I don't quite understand why CM equates such a simple mathematical formula with real results, the fact remains that in high-profile cases such as Bobby Fischer's, CM has done some bizarre "toying" with the numbers. (The terms "bizarre" and "absurd" have also appeared in the commentary of others' in relation to this site.) In the most obvious example, Mr. Fischer's name appears on listings of top "players" from years in which he did not actually "play" chess -- a self-evident blunder which bumps nearly all other players down a notch, thus mucking up /their rankings/. I noted a similar recklessness in the published rankings of players by others quite some time back, so I am not slamming CM here, just discussing how unreliable such sources can be, especially if their numbers are blindly swallowed whole. As a matter of fact, in a rare instance of clear thinking, Mr. Kingston pointed out the widely varying results which these statisticians can achieve; considering that certain "standard" references exist which list the results of chess events going back a century and more, this would seem to indicate some toying around by the statisticians, I think-- toying which is undoubtedly influenced by personal bias and expectations. -- help bot   Date: 12 Jan 2009 22:12:37 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 12, 8:48=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > That it predicts results better than > > Elo is not surprising to me. > > =A0 An interesting delusion, for not even the folks > at chessmetrics have dared to claim such a > sweeping thing as that. > "I can now confidently say that the Chessmetrics ratings work better than the FIDE ratings at predicting the results of future games, and thus the Chessmetrics ratings are more accurate than the FIDE ratings at estimating the true level of skill of chess players." http://db.chessmetrics.com/Documents/AboutSystem.htm You should not be ashamed that you cannot follow technical or mathematical arguments. Not everybody has the training or mental capacity for it. But that you cannot understand written English is something to be ashamed of. Or are you just a liar?   Date: 12 Jan 2009 20:48:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > There is nothing absurd about presenting > evidence in favor of a position. > The concept of providing evidence > in support of a claim, in contrast to engaging > in ignorant ranting, is clearly foreign to help bot. > =A0And, of course, Mr. bot has completely > misunderstood what has been > calculated in case there is anyone stupid > enough to take his objections > seriously. (It has nothing to do with a > "simplified" model) Ad hominist tendency duly noted. One wonders if this is some random birth defect, or a "learned" deformity, perhaps acquired from others who are not only infected with the ad hom bug themselves, but also are dangerous carriers of the debilitating disease... . > The logic behind his approach is not > persuasive to me, but I have to concede > that to the degree I have looked at it, the > results appear reasonable. Interesting. One notes a certain lack of genuine confidence, along with an apparent general ignorance of the pertinent facts. One fact is that many people have /inde- pendently/ concluded that some of the chessmatrics rankings are absurd; and another fact is that in certain cases, gross errors of omission have been pointed out, along with a certain weirdness: to wit, the skewing of numbers by assumpions of a player's decline during inactive periods (even when relatively young). However, I know of no comparable data regarding the astuteness of Dr. Elo's earlier work since back then, most people had no uncensored forum for the sharing of critical ideas on chess. One item was that Dr. Elo's method made no allowance for the inherent advantage of having the first move-- a factor which alone may well be worth some forty or so points. > That it predicts results better than > Elo is not surprising to me. An interesting delusion, for not even the folks at chessmetrics have dared to claim such a sweeping thing as that. In reading the /actual/ claim by chessmetrics, I was struck by the smallness, by the very tiny margin of supposedly superior "accuracy", even if one just blindly accepts their method and calculations. Not much to brag about there. Of course, some of the players they claimed they handled "less accurately" than Dr. Elo were among those talked about most, such as Bobby Fischer! -- help bot   Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:52:40 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 3:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 12, 2:49=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =A0 However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of games > > Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not > > constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor > > nor pretends to. That is the usual interjection of Taylor Kingston. No, it is the interjection of Phil Innes, who said "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." As you often admonish others, "own your own words," Phil. > > Thus Innes' claim, that "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a > > 2300 player," still is not validated. > > Neither is it invalidated. Good grief, Phil, this is childish, laughable, absolutely puerile. You are like a little boy who, when his belief in Santa Claus is challenged, says "You can't prove he doesn't exist!" > The only issue here has really to do with > discovering something about Morphy. No, the issue is Phil Innes' honesty, which is clearly non-existent. We discovered that here a long time ago, but you continue to provide more proof frequently, this being just the latest example. Phil, the plain fact is you attributed to Nunn something, as far as we can determine, he did *_not_* write. Even if he *_has_* written such a thing, you are still dishonest, because clearly you do not know of any such statement from him. You claim he said "Morphy was a 2300 player," but are unable to cite any actual source. That's called fabrication. You made it up. You lied. No need to waste my time further on this.     Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:30:00 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever?) On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:52:40 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: >On Jan 12, 3:30�pm, [email protected] wrote: >> On Jan 12, 2:49�pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: >> > � However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of games >> > Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not >> > constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor >> nor pretends to. That is the usual interjection of Taylor Kingston. > No, it is the interjection of Phil Innes, who said "GM Nunn was seen >to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." As you often admonish others, >"own your own words," Phil. If Phil had said something such as, "It's reasonable to infer from the study GM Nunn did of Carlsbad 1911, that Morphy's actual strength as compared to contemporary practice, might have been as low as....", he'd have been on relatively defensible ground. Where he ends with egg on his face is that he claimed Nunn himself made such an estimate, and when asked to produce the quote, he stutters, stammers, blusters, fumes, insults, and in various ways dances around the issue in order to avoid admitting he erred. The funny thing is, even after being called on his misstatement, Phil could have retreated to the inference described above with minimal loss of face and credibility.   Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:30:37 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 2:49=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 12, 2:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On 11 Jan, 16:45, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > > conclusions about all the players of that era. > > > That's slightly misleading - he put *all* the games from Carlsbad 1911 > > (not just those of Suechting), and those from the Biel Interzonal of > > 1993 through Fritz to count the number of blunders. > > =A0 Thank you for the clarification. The information I was given > indicated that Nunn mainly examined S=FCchting's games. Re-checking > Richard Forster's discussion of this from "Heroic Tales," I see that > Forster does make clear Nunn looked at all the games from those two > tournaments. But why did you challenge it in the first place? Still, nothing in your correction to your own post [which was as usual strident, and wrong! Misleadingly wrong] indicates why you are addressing the issue at all, and if you are actually interested in impartial assessment of Morphy. Which is what I wrote you days ago. > =A0 However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of games > Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not > constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor nor pretends to. That is the usual interjection of Taylor Kingston. His own point upon that of others, who as surely, wre making a rather different one. > any conclusion about Morphy. > Thus Innes' claim, that "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a > 2300 player," still is not validated. Neither is it invalidated. The only issue here has really to do with discovering something about Morphy. Who has subscribed to that interest? To present to those without interest is to submit to usual newsgroup blather - which even when confronted as above, does not lead to the main point of an issue. It is a rather tawdry technique where people who do not even admit that process, 'the how we know' of things, are relevant. Still they want things proved to them, which is an impossibility - as impossible as talking to Sloan about the great Fischer. Does Taylor Kingston want to know an objectivised measure of Morphy, or not? Does it depend on who said what, as if authorities should be believed, or on what does it depend? I think nothing depends here, and Taylor Kingston us miffed that he cannot comment on what he doesn't know. When he does know something, as above, and as the last 6 years of posting here demonstrate, nothing changes. Phil Innes   Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:08:53 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 10:05=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 12, 9:16=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > > > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > > > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > > > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material= , > > > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed= it > > > > as being an insufficient survey - > > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > > conclusions about all the players of that era. > > > Just to put this back on track - is the Nunn reference about Morphy > > the subject I address? If so, as I said before, there is no need to > > refer to =A0Nunn's survey, since we already admit it exists. > > =A0 Um, most definitely *_no_*, Phil. Not a single person here, except > you, has said that Nunn ever did any sort of survey asserting that > "Morphy was a 2300 player." Not a ingle person here has expressed interest in if Morphy was a 2300 player, and motive is big. > I, and several others here, strongly doubt > that any such survey by Nunn about Morphy exists. Fine - what does that have to do with me? > Since you claim it > does exist, it's up to you to prove it exists. That is the subject I'm > addressing. What actually were you 'discussing' with the other people - the ones disagreeing with you in the material I provided. Did you actually have a topic. You see, its doesn't seem to matter to you whether Morphy, as assessed by Fritz was 2300, 2450 or 2700. So why do you ask so persistently, when you already discarded the idea as worthless? > > But that is not the issue here - as I said before, asking for the > > source is without merit, since as we also see here - it is dismissed. > > =A0 When the alleged source apparently does not exist, it is very much > *_with_* merit to ask for it, and =A0very much *_without_* merit to > continue, falsely, to claim it exists. What actually were you dismissing? I could have got it wrong - but that I submit is not my problem since you are unable to say cogently and to those who you discussed 'it' with, what your point may have been. > > As for 'general conclusions about the players of that era', where has > > that come from? > > =A0 I'm not asking about that. Quite? So why are you interrogating the subject? > I'm asking about your claim that "GM Nunn > was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." But that is an impertinence - I already, after at least a half dozen questions from you on varieties of subjects, resolved that nothing resolves on answering them - while you demand of others they do research for which you are unable to state any interest. The very example above introduces what you are /not / interested in, which you introduced into a conversation with other commentators - and which does not identify anything about your interest. Whereas it bedraggles theirs to answer you. You have become more than a little indulgent in this respect, no? > > But let us take it seriously, > > =A0 By all means, you should start taking my question seriously. > Otherwise you look like a fool or a liar, if not both. Again you switch to your question, not my question - and this is your eternal pattern. This is why you fall out with everyone who faisl to find your questions interesting. Instead you mock the source which would answer your question. Pfft!@ I find my response no different than anyone else's. > > and if 'we' including Wlod are actually > > interested in that question, however well Nunn explicates it, then > > instead of simply dismissing the survey, let us try and induce a > > better one. > > =A0 First, how about you show us this alleged Morphy survey by Nunn? No. Mr. Kingston. I will show you nothing since you are not interested in what you ask about - not in this, nor in any subject. You merely want to posture on usenet. I need no conditions from you to recommend my own idea of study - and if you ain't interested in it, buizz off! > > When I wrote about this - a 'Fritz' type analysis, or something along > > the lines of Convekta's analysis module, it received no reply here - > > so I simply assume that those people who have asked for the survey > > which is already commented upon, have no shared interest with me in > > exploring the actual playing strength of historical players. > > > For readers who might like to engage this subject, much of it has been > > anticipated at Chessbase where a massive mailbag was received on this > > topic - and where Dr. Nunn made some answers. > > > Since he is perhaps criticized for his views, I take his own answers > > to be in the spirit of exploring the topic, and far from anything > > definitive. > > > Phil Innes > > =A0 By his repeated evasions, our Phil admits, but only tacitly, that he > was talking through the wrong end of his alimentary canal when he said > "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." So we see the usual and disgusting response from Taylor Kingston, who assumes that his massive ego requires others to submit to his conditions before they speak their minds. If anyone, including Taylor Kingston, should like the remarkable evidence of this, I could offer them his own e-mails. > =A0 What exactly is Phil's problem, that over and over he (A) makes such > unsupported claims, and then (B) when challenged, completely fails to > to provide proof, You are the problem. You assume I can't, whereas you are not reading I will not. Remember the graphology example from Fischer? You went ape then demanding that people prove to you all sorts of stuff about prediction. No-one had previously mentioned that subect and had talked about forensic /analysis/. If you want to join in anything at all, then I think you must do more than demand that your conditions must be met, and actually state your own interest: To the point is: what if Nunn said nothing at all, what if he said 2300, 2500 etc. Why does Taylor Kingston want to know? Is he a total waste of time? > and when shown to be wrong he refuses to admit he > was wrong? If only (A) happened, then we could chalk it up to habitual > carelessness and/or dyslexia (inability to read). But the fact of (B), > that he continues to insist on his claims when they are shown to be > false or baseless, indicates serious, fundamental dishonesty. When Taylor Kingston is not indulged - and why should I indulge such a twit? Phil Innes   Date: 12 Jan 2009 11:49:34 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 2:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On 11 Jan, 16:45, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > conclusions about all the players of that era. > > That's slightly misleading - he put *all* the games from Carlsbad 1911 > (not just those of Suechting), and those from the Biel Interzonal of > 1993 through Fritz to count the number of blunders. Thank you for the clarification. The information I was given indicated that Nunn mainly examined S=FCchting's games. Re-checking Richard Forster's discussion of this from "Heroic Tales," I see that Forster does make clear Nunn looked at all the games from those two tournaments. However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of games Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor any conclusion about Morphy. Thus Innes' claim, that "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player," still is not validated.   Date: 12 Jan 2009 11:30:39 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On 11 Jan, 16:45, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > conclusions about all the players of that era. That's slightly misleading - he put *all* the games from Carlsbad 1911 (not just those of Suechting), and those from the Biel Interzonal of 1993 through Fritz to count the number of blunders. (Those being two tournaments with a similar number of games and category). A quote from the book (given at John Watson's review: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jw= atsonbkrev82.html): "the old players were much worse than I expected. The blunders thrown up by Fritz were so awful that I looked at a considerable number of complete games 'by hand', wondering if the Fritz results really reflected the general standard of play. They did".   Date: 12 Jan 2009 07:05:36 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 9:16=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material, > > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed i= t > > > as being an insufficient survey - > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > conclusions about all the players of that era. > > Just to put this back on track - is the Nunn reference about Morphy > the subject I address? If so, as I said before, there is no need to > refer to =A0Nunn's survey, since we already admit it exists. Um, most definitely *_no_*, Phil. Not a single person here, except you, has said that Nunn ever did any sort of survey asserting that "Morphy was a 2300 player." I, and several others here, strongly doubt that any such survey by Nunn about Morphy exists. Since you claim it does exist, it's up to you to prove it exists. That is the subject I'm addressing. > But that is not the issue here - as I said before, asking for the > source is without merit, since as we also see here - it is dismissed. When the alleged source apparently does not exist, it is very much *_with_* merit to ask for it, and very much *_without_* merit to continue, falsely, to claim it exists. > As for 'general conclusions about the players of that era', where has > that come from? I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about your claim that "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." > But let us take it seriously, By all means, you should start taking my question seriously. Otherwise you look like a fool or a liar, if not both. > and if 'we' including Wlod are actually > interested in that question, however well Nunn explicates it, then > instead of simply dismissing the survey, let us try and induce a > better one. First, how about you show us this alleged Morphy survey by Nunn? > When I wrote about this - a 'Fritz' type analysis, or something along > the lines of Convekta's analysis module, it received no reply here - > so I simply assume that those people who have asked for the survey > which is already commented upon, have no shared interest with me in > exploring the actual playing strength of historical players. > > For readers who might like to engage this subject, much of it has been > anticipated at Chessbase where a massive mailbag was received on this > topic - and where Dr. Nunn made some answers. > > Since he is perhaps criticized for his views, I take his own answers > to be in the spirit of exploring the topic, and far from anything > definitive. > > Phil Innes By his repeated evasions, our Phil admits, but only tacitly, that he was talking through the wrong end of his alimentary canal when he said "GM Nunn was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." What exactly is Phil's problem, that over and over he (A) makes such unsupported claims, and then (B) when challenged, completely fails to to provide proof, and when shown to be wrong he refuses to admit he was wrong? If only (A) happened, then we could chalk it up to habitual carelessness and/or dyslexia (inability to read). But the fact of (B), that he continues to insist on his claims when they are shown to be false or baseless, indicates serious, fundamental dishonesty.   Date: 12 Jan 2009 06:16:12 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material, > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed it > > as being an insufficient survey - > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > conclusions about all the players of that era. Just to put this back on track - is the Nunn reference about Morphy the subject I address? If so, as I said before, there is no need to refer to Nunn's survey, since we already admit it exists. But that is not the issue here - as I said before, asking for the source is without merit, since as we also see here - it is dismissed. As for 'general conclusions about the players of that era', where has that come from? But let us take it seriously, and if 'we' including Wlod are actually interested in that question, however well Nunn explicates it, then instead of simply dismissing the survey, let us try and induce a better one. When I wrote about this - a 'Fritz' type analysis, or something along the lines of Convekta's analysis module, it received no reply here - so I simply assume that those people who have asked for the survey which is already commented upon, have no shared interest with me in exploring the actual playing strength of historical players. For readers who might like to engage this subject, much of it has been anticipated at Chessbase where a massive mailbag was received on this topic - and where Dr. Nunn made some answers. Since he is perhaps criticized for his views, I take his own answers to be in the spirit of exploring the topic, and far from anything definitive. Phil Innes > And certainly a few > games by Hugo S=FCchting are no basis at all for a conclusion about > Morphy. > > > now you wonder if the survey even > > exists. > > =A0 Trying to sow confusion, as usual, aren't you, Phil. Let's keep > things straight: I'm asking about your claim that "according to Nunn > Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." Where did Nunn ever > say this?     Date: 12 Jan 2009 09:12:10 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever?) On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:16:12 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >Just to put this back on track - is the Nunn reference about Morphy >the subject I address? If so, as I said before, there is no need to >refer to Nunn's survey, since we already admit it exists. Nobody questioned that what you call Nunn's "survey" exists. WE QUESTION THAT IT SAID WHAT YOU CLAIMED. YOU SAID NUNN PUT MORPHY AT 2300. Are you afraid to address this (or admit you were mistaken) ?   Date: 12 Jan 2009 06:05:10 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 4:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 10, 3:48=A0am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 10:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Chessmetrics compares its accuracy vs. those of Elo and finds > > > not only that it is generally superior, it is specifically superior > > > =A0 The absurdity of chessmetrics vouching for > > its own accuracy is self-evident. =A0 Moreover, > > they freely use the term "accuracy" when in > > fact what they are calculating is /conformity/ > > to the simplified model which I believe was > > once used by the USCF to guestimate > > player rating changes in one's head. > > There is nothing absurd about presenting > evidence in favor of a position. > The concept of providing evidence > in support of a claim, in contrast to engaging > in ignorant ranting, is clearly foreign to help bot. > =A0And, of course, Mr. bot has completely > misunderstood what has been > calculated in case there is anyone stupid > enough to take his objections > seriously. (It has nothing to do with a > "simplified" model) > > The Chessmetrics algorithm differs from > FIDE in a few ways. Correcting > the time defect of Elo is an obvious > improvement, and I believe the originator > claims to have experimented with > the appropriate window (arriving at linear > decrease over a 4 year period) > > Another difference is that he introduces > factors to avoid overcounting small > events (and indirectly penalize inactivity). > The logic behind his approach is not > persuasive to me, but I have to concede > that to the degree I have looked at it, the > results appear reasonable. > > It also has a more sophisticated > approach to historical reconstruction than > some of the other "historical" Elo approaches. > > That it predicts results better than > Elo is not surprising to me. I see that FIde have published figures for the top 100 players for the past 8 years. It seems like a steady increment amounting to about 40 points in all. These of course, are real measurements rather than estimates. //Phil Innes Top 100 Players January 2009 - 2684 Top 100 Players October 2008 - 2682 Top 100 Players July 2008 - 2679 Top 100 Players April 2008 - 2677 Top 100 Players January 2008 - 2675 Top 100 Players October 2007 - 2672 Top 100 Players July 2007 - 2671 Top 100 Players April 2007 - 2669 Top 100 Players January 2007 - 2666 Top 100 Players October 2006 - 2666 Top 100 Players July 2006 - 2665 Top 100 Players April 2006 - 2664 Top 100 Players January 2006 - 2664 Top 100 Players October 2005 - 2663 Top 100 Players July 2005 - 2662 Top 100 Players April 2005 - 2661 Top 100 Players January 2005 - 2658 Top 100 Players October 2004 - 2657 Top 100 Players July 2004 - 2658 Top 100 Players April 2004 - 2656 Top 100 Players January 2004 - 2654 Top 100 Players October 2003 - 2654 Top 100 Players July 2003 - 2653 Top 100 Players April 2003 - 2651 Top 100 Players January 2003 - 2650 Top 100 Players October 2002 - 2649 Top 100 Players July 2002 - 2649 Top 100 Players April 2002 - 2645 Top 100 Players January 2002 - 2645 Top 100 Players October 2001 - 2646 Top 100 Players July 2001 - 2645 Top 100 Players April 2001 - 2646 Top 100 Players January 2001 - 2647 Top 100 Players October 2000 - 2644 Top 100 Players July 2000 - 2644 www.fide.com   Date: 11 Jan 2009 14:16:45 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 4:27=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 11, 3:43=A0pm, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 12:22=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 11, 1:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely > > > > cited in the EDO survey. > > > > =A0 How about it, Jerry? Can you tell us if/when/where British GM Joh= n > > > Nunn ever said anything like "Fritz proves Morphy was a 2300-player"? > > > No such knowledge. All my Nunn books are full of good, careful, > > analysis, but they don't deal that I recall with 19th century chess. > > =A0 Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk. Just not your day, Phil, is it? LOOK I DO IT FOR YOU - AND YOU ALREADY CONTRIBUTED TO IT - AND CHESSCAFE IS THE SOURCE!!@!!!' BUT PERHAPS YOUR CURRENT ABUSE IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THE ARTICLE YOU YOURSELF CONTRIBUTE TO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE I ALREADY POSTED WHAT FOLLOWS - BUT AS I SAY, KINGSTON IS NOT REALLY AKING ANYTHING - AND NOTHING DEPENDS ON IT What I should like readers to note is that Kingston does know of what I speak - and even decided he would be inept to comment on it. Therefore he tries to bury the very topic to which he ask about - so that he can continue to have fantasies that he is Paul Morphy, or whatever fantasy he has. But serious comment on the worth of Morphy - he ducks the very idea of objectifying it, and would rather fuck over people who do ask for that, as he deliberately does in this series of posts, proving simultaneously that he is insincere and prepared to lie about it ---- I already posted this once today !!!!!!!!!!! ------------ You may be thinking of a puzzle book GM Nunn published in 1999. One >> >chapter features an error-checking study he did of games played at>> >Karlsbad 1911. Thanks. That's exactly the source I was trying to remember. Nunn's logic and conclusions were strongly criticized by IM Richard >Forster in a May 1999 article at ChessCafe.com, "Jewels from Carlsbad >1911." A sample quote:> "Nunn feels confident to state ... that the average strength of the >tournament was a mere 2130 Elo. Now some simple mathematics show that >this is quite ridiculous. If the tournament's strength was 2130 then >[winner Richard] Teichmann's score of 18/25 (+11) corresponds to a >performance of about 2300. You can have many reservations about the Elo >system and the calculation of historical ratings, but something must be >very rotten in the state of Denmark if Teichmann's performance in what >was undoubtedly the best tournament of his life is 270 points below his >peak five-year average." (Which Elo gives as 2570 in "The Rating of >Chessplayers Past and Present.") It seems to me that Nunn was attempting, by Fritzing a set of games from representative tournaments of two different eras, to do something Elo ratings can't: to compare the relative strengths of two disparate sets of rated players. Having done this using blunder-ratio, he then expressed, in today's Elo numbers, his estimate for the ratings of several of these older players. If my understanding of this is correct, it's a mistake to criticize, as you report Forster did, Nunn's estimate (given in today's Elo) of Teichmann's tournament performance rating relative to a lifetime Elo gleaned from play in his own era. From one I know of Nunn's article, he didn't dispute that "several fine games" were played at Carlsbad, 1911. His claimed that the ratio of blunders over the whole set of games was higher than in a modern high-category tournament. For either of us to get in the middle of this by analyzing the games themselves would be like a couple of cats trying to intervene in a battle between two elephants. Forster goes on to challenge Nunn's contention that of the 325 games >played at Carlsbad 1911, only two were very good. Forster presents >several fine games, and shows how the ideas and techniques demonstrated >in them presaged modern GM games.> The article is, alas, no longer in the ChessCafe archives, but can be >found in print form in the "Heroic Tales" anthology (Russell >Enterprise s, 2002). Add comment Ron 13 October 2005 02:57:29 [ permanent link ] In article <1129156112.938851. [email protected] "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com > wrote: Forster presents > several fine games, and shows how the ideas and techniques demonstrated > in them presaged modern GM games. That's sort of a misdirection, though, isn't it? I mean, nobody doubts that today's players are standing on the shoulders of giants. > > It isn't relevant to the current topic, but while I am talking about > > Morphy, I have found a few little new Morphy nuggets in my most recent > > research. For example, I have the name of a player who is said to have > > drawn Morphy in one of his New Orleans blindfold simuls, I couldn't > > find his name in other Morphy sources. I also found a follow-up to the > > "mysterious lady" playing Morphy story which is somewhat interesting. > > =A0 I remember that one from Lawson. She's supposed to have played quite > well, as I recall. Probably better than nearly-an-IM level.   Date: 11 Jan 2009 13:47:21 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:22=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 1:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely > > > cited in the EDO survey. > > > =A0 How about it, Jerry? Can you tell us if/when/where British GM John > > Nunn ever said anything like "Fritz proves Morphy was a 2300-player"? > > The EDO survey is different from Nunn - but how about it Jerry - you > tell your editor what you know, and I'll see y'all later when you have > something to base your opinions upon other than pure romance. I think we now have definite proof that Phil simply can't read, or rarely bothers to. He posts "how about it Jerry" after Spinrad has already replied. Jerry having already shot him down, Phil proceeds to shoot himself in the foot as well. As Larry Parr says, lovin' it.   Date: 11 Jan 2009 13:39:30 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 1:22=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 11:45=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 11, 11:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> w= rote: > > > > > > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > > > > > > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. > > > > > > =A0 Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As = I > > > > > recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein i= s > > > > > "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that > > > > > book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, N= unn > > > > > concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCch= ting at > > > > > Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he > > > > > estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. > > > > > =A0 And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who= , when, > > > > > where? > > > > > > > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who = knows > > > > > > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that accor= ding to > > > > > > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > > > > > > =A0 If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track= record > > > > > inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken > > > > > place. > > > > > ROFL - your track record is that nothing whatever happens if people= do > > > > your research for you! no answer! > > > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > > > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > > > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > > > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material= , > > > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed= it > > > > as being an insufficient survey - no answer > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > > conclusions about all the players of that era. And certainly a few > > > games by Hugo S=FCchting are no basis at all for a conclusion about > > > Morphy. actually they are *some* basis, but not an adequate basis > > > > now you wonder if the survey even > > > > exists. no answer > > > =A0 Trying to sow confusion, as usual, aren't you, Phil. Let's keep > > > things straight: I'm asking about your claim that "according to Nunn > > > Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." Where did Nunn ever > > > say this? > > > Kingston - I just provided rather a lot of sources. > > =A0 Not one of which had anything to with your claim that "according to > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." you mean that it was not specific to the quotes I presented - or 'had nothing to do with' since I suggest that that was the very topic? > > You couldn't wait > > 10 minutes could you, to tranhj [sic] someone. > > =A0 Eh? What "tranhjing" may be, I don't know. but this is why your commentaries are universally resented. since evidently you don't understand a typo, hence it should be trash not tranj > =A0 But the plain fact, Phil, is that if you say "according to Nunn > Fritz says [Morphy] was in his own time a 2300 player," you should > have the relevant source and quote at your fingertips. 'should' what's that? I ask you what it would mean to do your own post hoc research for you, so you could then tell us why you divert the issue into sone 'fritz' determining if Morphy was 2300, 2400, or whatever number you pass on the question, since it actually has no bearing on your 'inquiry' does it? you decided to fight the issue before you known what fritz might say, because you prefer to believe things, rather than actually measure them > > I see BTW that you refer to it yourself, > > =A0 Phil, I find it difficult to refer to that which does not exist. what you find difficult is to say why you argued with all the people I mention, and what basis you had to do so information will not change your attitude anymore than on previous occasions with me, larry evans, or whoever you contest. you didn't believe lasker came 8th, but Hooper said so, but then you said he was wrong. you presented absolutely nothing to contradict Hooper. > You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem there, even though you > should. > > > ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely > > cited in the EDO survey. > > =A0 How about it, Jerry? Can you tell us if/when/where British GM John > Nunn ever said anything like "Fritz proves Morphy was a 2300-player"? The EDO survey is different from Nunn - but how about it Jerry - you tell your editor what you know, and I'll see y'all later when you have something to base your opinions upon other than pure romance. But I won't see you here - I started a new thread on Morphy to which you could contribute your no doubt valuable opinions. Phil Innes   Date: 11 Jan 2009 13:27:35 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 3:43=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 11, 12:22=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 1:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely > > > cited in the EDO survey. > > > =A0 How about it, Jerry? Can you tell us if/when/where British GM John > > Nunn ever said anything like "Fritz proves Morphy was a 2300-player"? > > No such knowledge. All my Nunn books are full of good, careful, > analysis, but they don't deal that I recall with 19th century chess. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk. Just not your day, Phil, is it? > It isn't relevant to the current topic, but while I am talking about > Morphy, I have found a few little new Morphy nuggets in my most recent > research. For example, I have the name of a player who is said to have > drawn Morphy in one of his New Orleans blindfold simuls, I couldn't > find his name in other Morphy sources. I also found a follow-up to the > "mysterious lady" playing Morphy story which is somewhat interesting. I remember that one from Lawson. She's supposed to have played quite well, as I recall. Probably better than nearly-an-IM level.   Date: 11 Jan 2009 12:43:51 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 12:22=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 11:45=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > On Jan 11, 11:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> w= rote: > > > > > > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > > > > > > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. > > > > > > =A0 Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As = I > > > > > recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein i= s > > > > > "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that > > > > > book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, N= unn > > > > > concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCch= ting at > > > > > Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he > > > > > estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. > > > > > =A0 And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who= , when, > > > > > where? > > > > > > > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who = knows > > > > > > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that accor= ding to > > > > > > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > > > > > > =A0 If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track= record > > > > > inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken > > > > > place. > > > > > ROFL - your track record is that nothing whatever happens if people= do > > > > your research for you! > > > > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > > > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > > > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > > > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material= , > > > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed= it > > > > as being an insufficient survey - > > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > > conclusions about all the players of that era. And certainly a few > > > games by Hugo S=FCchting are no basis at all for a conclusion about > > > Morphy. > > > > > now you wonder if the survey even > > > > exists. > > > > =A0 Trying to sow confusion, as usual, aren't you, Phil. Let's keep > > > things straight: I'm asking about your claim that "according to Nunn > > > Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." Where did Nunn ever > > > say this? > > > Kingston - I just provided rather a lot of sources. > > =A0 Not one of which had anything to with your claim that "according to > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." > > > You couldn't wait > > 10 minutes could you, to tranhj [sic] someone. > > =A0 Eh? What "tranhjing" may be, I don't know. > =A0 But the plain fact, Phil, is that if you say "according to Nunn > Fritz says [Morphy] was in his own time a 2300 player," you should > have the relevant source and quote at your fingertips. > > > I see BTW that you refer to it yourself, > > =A0 Phil, I find it difficult to refer to that which does not exist. > You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem there, even though you > should. > > > ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely > > cited in the EDO survey. > > =A0 How about it, Jerry? Can you tell us if/when/where British GM John > Nunn ever said anything like "Fritz proves Morphy was a 2300-player"?- Hi= de quoted text - No such knowledge. All my Nunn books are full of good, careful, analysis, but they don't deal that I recall with 19th century chess. I could have forgotten something, of course. It isn't relevant to the current topic, but while I am talking about Morphy, I have found a few little new Morphy nuggets in my most recent research. For example, I have the name of a player who is said to have drawn Morphy in one of his New Orleans blindfold simuls, I couldn't find his name in other Morphy sources. I also found a follow-up to the "mysterious lady" playing Morphy story which is somewhat interesting. Have to figure out how to weave them into other articles somehow. I also came up with a couple of 19th century US generals who were actually good chess players; most generals who are claimed to be strong players turn out to be quite weak by the standards of serious chess players. Would anyone like to nominate a candidate for best chess playing General (I will also allow equivalent top military titles, eg French Marshalls). I think I will write an article on these over the summer sometime. Jerry Spinrad > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 11 Jan 2009 10:22:10 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 1:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 11, 11:45=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 11:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Jan 11, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wro= te: > > > > > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > > > > > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. > > > > > =A0 Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As I > > > > recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein is > > > > "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that > > > > book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, Nun= n > > > > concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCchti= ng at > > > > Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he > > > > estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. > > > > =A0 And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who, = when, > > > > where? > > > > > > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who kn= ows > > > > > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that accordi= ng to > > > > > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > > > > > =A0 If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track r= ecord > > > > inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken > > > > place. > > > > ROFL - your track record is that nothing whatever happens if people d= o > > > your research for you! > > > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material, > > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed i= t > > > as being an insufficient survey - > > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > > conclusions about all the players of that era. And certainly a few > > games by Hugo S=FCchting are no basis at all for a conclusion about > > Morphy. > > > > now you wonder if the survey even > > > exists. > > > =A0 Trying to sow confusion, as usual, aren't you, Phil. Let's keep > > things straight: I'm asking about your claim that "according to Nunn > > Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." Where did Nunn ever > > say this? > > Kingston - I just provided rather a lot of sources. Not one of which had anything to with your claim that "according to Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." > You couldn't wait > 10 minutes could you, to tranhj [sic] someone. Eh? What "tranhjing" may be, I don't know. But the plain fact, Phil, is that if you say "according to Nunn Fritz says [Morphy] was in his own time a 2300 player," you should have the relevant source and quote at your fingertips. > I see BTW that you refer to it yourself, Phil, I find it difficult to refer to that which does not exist. You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem there, even though you should. > ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely > cited in the EDO survey. How about it, Jerry? Can you tell us if/when/where British GM John Nunn ever said anything like "Fritz proves Morphy was a 2300-player"?   Date: 11 Jan 2009 10:07:46 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 11, 11:45=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 11, 11:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > > > > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. > > > > =A0 Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As I > > > recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein is > > > "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that > > > book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, Nunn > > > concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCchting= at > > > Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he > > > estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. > > > =A0 And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who, wh= en, > > > where? > > > > > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who know= s > > > > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that according= to > > > > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > > > > =A0 If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track rec= ord > > > inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken > > > place. > > > ROFL - your track record is that nothing whatever happens if people do > > your research for you! > > =A0 In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either > claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting > that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That > responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > > > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material, > > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed it > > as being an insufficient survey - > > =A0 Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just > *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general > conclusions about all the players of that era. And certainly a few > games by Hugo S=FCchting are no basis at all for a conclusion about > Morphy. > > > now you wonder if the survey even > > exists. > > =A0 Trying to sow confusion, as usual, aren't you, Phil. Let's keep > things straight: I'm asking about your claim that "according to Nunn > Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." Where did Nunn ever > say this? Kingston - I just provided rather a lot of sources. You couldn't wait 10 minutes could you, to tranhj someone. I see BTW that you refer to it yourself, and that no other writer quite takes to doing your work with you, Mr. Lightweight. So - should I? Maybe you should continue arguing it doesn't exist, and also wondering if all other commentators are mad? Do want you want, I don't care more than your other correspondents. You won't change you mind anyway! Since you ALREADY said that Nunn's information wasn't a large enough survey for you. So piss off now, and come back when you get sick of the social isolation, or content yourself with only abuse. ps: Your buddy Jerry Spinrad knows where it is - and he is largely cited in the EDO survey. Phil Innes   Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:45:15 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player On Jan 11, 11:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 11, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > > > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. > > > =A0 Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As I > > recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein is > > "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that > > book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, Nunn > > concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCchting a= t > > Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he > > estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. > > =A0 And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who, when= , > > where? > > > > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who knows > > > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that according t= o > > > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > > > =A0 If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track recor= d > > inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken > > place. > > ROFL - your track record is that nothing whatever happens if people do > your research for you! In other words, you cannot name a single source to back up either claim? And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself, insisting that it's other people's responsibility to research your claim? That responsibility is *_entirely_* yours, but you continually shirk it. > So - the question is, even if you fight your way to Nunn's material, > what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed it > as being an insufficient survey - Yes, I dismissed Nunn's survey of just *_one player_* from just *_one tournament_* as quite an inadequate basis for any general conclusions about all the players of that era. And certainly a few games by Hugo S=FCchting are no basis at all for a conclusion about Morphy. > now you wonder if the survey even > exists. Trying to sow confusion, as usual, aren't you, Phil. Let's keep things straight: I'm asking about your claim that "according to Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." Where did Nunn ever say this?     Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:52:00 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 6:12=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:37:37 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >> If Phil had said something such as, "It's reasonable to infer from the > >> study GM Nunn did of Carlsbad 1911, that Morphy's actual strength as > >> compared to contemporary practice, might have been as low as....", > >> he'd have been on relatively defensible ground. > >If it were reasonable to suspect that correspondents would infer... > >then what would be the necessity to 'prove' anything? Instead we have > >not questions relating to Morphy's strength, but quibbkles by people > >whose orientation to objective anything is actually denied. If they > >were interested in Morphy's strength according to some 'Fritz' > >wouldn't they have said so? > > It seems people were interested in what a well-known GM (Nunn) might > have said about Morphy's strength. =A0 > > And Phil Innes told these people what GM Nunn said about Morphy's > strength. > > And Phil told them wrong. Actually, the issue is that Murray does not know whether right or wrong, since I refuse his and Kingston's inquiry, since they seem to think someone owes them something, while their own motives are extremely obscure on any matter. ' > And Phil hates, just hates, to admit it. > > >What does Murray care for objective truth? ...He can't say why he > > writes about this subject more than Kingston. > > Oh, now we gotta say why we write? =A0 Only if you can. If you can't admit your interest in a subject, welcome to exclusionary hell - after all, Murray, you personally have invited opinions on all sorts of subjects, which you never fail to rubbish. look at your recent effort - that parents who audit who looks after their chess kids are 'bible thumpers', and I am too, for saying so thus, your inquiry is exposed as complete bollocks > But, yes, Phil, I *am* able to say why I write about this subject, > although your claim that I write more about it than Kingston is > demonstrably false (but that's nothing new about your claims, is it?). > > Here's why: =A0we caught you telling another whopper, Phil, and you > won't admit it. =A0And your hapless denials are amusing. Murray's reason, although he doesn't know what Nunn opinioned, is to that to not oblige him is to be telling untruths. When one does oblige him he rubbishes your opinion. This reason seems not to have penetrated his ego as even a possibility, and he states his reason about Morphy's ranking based on nothing he knows, and not the slightest interest in what it may be. What's new with the Murrays of this world? These posters who use this medium to demand things of others they are unable to engage state that their own demonstrated behavior negates those who can talk of things. This is the last forum to which they can contribute, their efforts being dismissed in moderated ones ;( If Mike Murray cared about the topic, Morphy's chess skill, he would have written about that - he didn't, therefore he does not, and seeks as usual to browbeat those who do investigate it - whining the whole while. Phil Innes       Date: 12 Jan 2009 22:11:32 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever?) On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:52:00 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >Actually, the issue is that Murray does not know whether right or >wrong, since I refuse his and Kingston's inquiry, since they seem to >think someone owes them something, while their own motives are >extremely obscure on any matter. Is that another way of admitting you know you're wrong ? >look at your recent effort - that parents who audit who looks after >their chess kids are 'bible thumpers', and I am too, for saying so Did I say that? Note: using the phrase is the same post is not the same. >thus, your inquiry is exposed as complete bollocks > >> But, yes, Phil, I *am* able to say why I write about this subject, >> although your claim that I write more about it than Kingston is >> demonstrably false (but that's nothing new about your claims, is it?). >> >> Here's why: �we caught you telling another whopper, Phil, and you >> won't admit it. �And your hapless denials are amusing. > >Murray's reason, although he doesn't know what Nunn opinioned, is to >that to not oblige him is to be telling untruths. When one does oblige >him he rubbishes your opinion. > >This reason seems not to have penetrated his ego as even a >possibility, and he states his reason about Morphy's ranking based on >nothing he knows, and not the slightest interest in what it may be. > >What's new with the Murrays of this world? > >These posters who use this medium to demand things of others they are >unable to engage state that their own demonstrated behavior negates >those who can talk of things. This is the last forum to which they can >contribute, their efforts being dismissed in moderated ones ;( I post regularly to the USCF forum. >If Mike Murray cared about the topic, Morphy's chess skill, he would >have written about that - he didn't, therefore he does not, and seeks >as usual to browbeat those who do investigate it - whining the whole >while. And, if Phil, when he made the original claim, knew what Nunn really wrote, none of this would have been necessary.   Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:01:49 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 11, 10:15=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 10, 4:13=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 1:02=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > =A0 Others, like Innes, just want to snatch Morphy from, say, 1851, > > > plunk him down in 2009, and have him play today's GMs. > > > That is the hypothetical instance. > > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. > > =A0 Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As I > recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein is > "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that > book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, Nunn > concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCchting at > Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he > estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. > =A0 And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who, when, > where? > > > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who knows > > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that according to > > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > > =A0 If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track record > inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken > place. ROFL - your track record is that nothing whatever happens if people do your research for you! Famously you challenged me to Lasker's 8th place. You were vehement it was joint 7th- 8th. So I offered you the source, and encyclopedia you own, and then you challenged the source itself - stating it was wrong, even as in the above, when you didn't have the tournament book in question. When you did obtain the tournament book, it did not explain either way what Hooper said was true. I said I didn't know if Hooper was right or wrong - but you knew he was wrong from the start. So - the question is, evedn if you fight your way to Nunn's material, what then? When it arose recently [by another poster] you dismissed it as being an insufficient survey - now you wonder if the surey even exists. > > Perhaps you will take a look at what Anand says of Fischer, whicbh > > does not speculate on an improved Fischer via computer - that is not > > his point, > > =A0 Really? Looking here (http://tinyurl.com/7tfnr3), Anand most > definitely speculates on an improved Fischer via computer: > > =93Well, I grew up with Bobby Fischer=92s games, and I stand on the > foundation he has built,=94 Anand said. =93But then, Fischer wouldn=92t b= e > able to play today the way he did in 1972. He would need time to > adjust against players, including me. Computer-based strategising > would help him too.=94 Anand does not speculate he would be better, but that he would /need to be better/ to compete today. That is the /main/ point. > > not mine about Morphy - but it /is/ to point out that even > > the 72 Ficher couldn't handle today's elite. > > =A0 As I pointed out yesterday, Phil, in the very article you cited > (http://tinyurl.com/8ym4od) he said something quite different, as > anyone can read here: > > "Would a character like Fischer have survived in a time like the > present? Are the demands greater than in the 70s? 'It=92s hard to say a > Bobby Fischer would not have survived even now.' Of course its hard to say either way, no? Anand is doing an Elo- specualtion - he is saying /if/ Fischer could absorb what is necessary, then the equivocal comment. "It=92s hard to say a > Bobby Fischer would not have survived even now." But selective quoting is not any contest with Anand's main headline. That the 1972 Fischer would not be in the first tier, and that Fischer was 'suspicious' of computers. Please also note that I gave you this reference to Times of India since I had already read it, reported it, and based my opinion on that. But you as usual already had your opinion, but no facts - and now you quote bits and pieces which do not represent the features of Anand's speech. > Anand offered after a > thought. 'I mean, most of modern chess is his offering. > > "'Myself and the rest had those moves ready for us when we started > out, but it had to take someone to discover them first. Bobby Fischer > was that person. What is the point you are arguing? > "'He was that person for entire generations of chess players. His was > a singular life in that sense. He=92s made it easier for us today. So, > to think he would have struggled... I don=92t think so.'" > > =A0 In other words, Phil, rather than being "crushed," as you have > claimed, Anand is saying the Fischer of 1972 would hold his own > today. You are such a fabulous distorter that you don't mention Anand also says this, nevermind the entire trend of the article: "I found him still stuck in a mid-Seventies idea of chess," said Anand, Phil Innes   Date: 11 Jan 2009 07:15:48 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 4:13=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 10, 1:02=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =A0 Others, like Innes, just want to snatch Morphy from, say, 1851, > > plunk him down in 2009, and have him play today's GMs. > > That is the hypothetical instance. > > As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy > to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. Has Nunn actually made any such declaration about Morphy? As I recall, the only Nunn source anyone here has cited in this vein is "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (Gambit, 1999). I don't have that book, but as far as I know, it does not discuss Morphy. Rather, Nunn concentrates only on games played by the minor master Hugo S=FCchting at Carlsbad 1911 (long after Morphy died), and based on those, he estimates S=FCchting at about 2100. And has anyone actually used Fritz to rate Morphy? If so, who, when, where? > This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who knows > how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that according to > Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. If it is true, please cite the relevant source(s). Your track record inspires little confidence that what you claim has actually taken place. > Perhaps you will take a look at what Anand says of Fischer, whicbh > does not speculate on an improved Fischer via computer - that is not > his point, Really? Looking here (http://tinyurl.com/7tfnr3), Anand most definitely speculates on an improved Fischer via computer: =93Well, I grew up with Bobby Fischer=92s games, and I stand on the foundation he has built,=94 Anand said. =93But then, Fischer wouldn=92t be able to play today the way he did in 1972. He would need time to adjust against players, including me. Computer-based strategising would help him too.=94 > not mine about Morphy - but it /is/ to point out that even > the 72 Ficher couldn't handle today's elite. As I pointed out yesterday, Phil, in the very article you cited (http://tinyurl.com/8ym4od) he said something quite different, as anyone can read here: "Would a character like Fischer have survived in a time like the present? Are the demands greater than in the 70s? 'It=92s hard to say a Bobby Fischer would not have survived even now.' Anand offered after a thought. 'I mean, most of modern chess is his offering. "'Myself and the rest had those moves ready for us when we started out, but it had to take someone to discover them first. Bobby Fischer was that person. "'He was that person for entire generations of chess players. His was a singular life in that sense. He=92s made it easier for us today. So, to think he would have struggled... I don=92t think so.'" In other words, Phil, rather than being "crushed," as you have claimed, Anand is saying the Fischer of 1972 would hold his own today.     Date: 13 Jan 2009 17:06:22 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 13, 9:51=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > =A0 I wonder if we haven't misdiagnosed Phil. Various hypotheses have > been mooted, ranging from habitual carelessness to dyslexia, from > lunacy to pathological mendacity. Could it be that, like Sam Sloan, > Phil is simply an attention whore? That he'll say anything, true or > false, as long as it gets him noticed? Bingo! Now let's hope his bragging of his alleged connections to Truong and Polgar get him the attention he richly deserves....     Date: 13 Jan 2009 08:00:55 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest > > =A0 Phil's actions here somewhat parallel Richard Nixon's during the > Watergate scandal. It wasn't the break-in that did Nixon in, illegal > though it was. What destroyed him was the cover-up. You gotta love Taylor Kingston - if it ain't like Musolini or Hitler or even Stalin, you can wind up like Nikon. What as usual is interesting is that Kingston cannot contradict what I say, nor can he say why he is even interested in it! > Just so with Phil. > His original misrepresentation of Nunn was wrong, What did Nunn say? Do you know - or is this another 'Lasker was not 8th, ever' thread. Would Nunn wind up like Hooper? Although he said it, he would be wrong? > but he really went > off the deep end by continuing to insist it was literally true, and > trying to cover his tracks with a smokescreen of irrelevancies. > =A0 What is most laughable here is that Phil seems to think this > actually works. But here on rgc we don't need a Congressional > investigation and a special prosecutor to uncover the facts, they're > on display for all to see. Phil's like a man walking naked down the > street, telling everyone he's actually wearing an Armani suit. The facts so far presented by any party =3D zero. The words presenting this zero are mighty indeed. > =A0 I wonder if we haven't misdiagnosed Phil. Various hypotheses have > been mooted, ranging from habitual carelessness to dyslexia, from > lunacy to pathological mendacity. Could it be that, like Sam Sloan, > Phil is simply an attention whore? That he'll say anything, true or > false, as long as it gets him noticed? How about I do not indulge you because you can't be bothered to address the issue yourself of the objective strength of Morphy - even after insisting that Morphy was 2690 Elo, according to Elo - but failing to mention that Elo didn't even use his own system in his projection. Therefore, Taylor Kingston is angry because he lacks the opportunity to mess up another record. Phil Innes     Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:51:22 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 4:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:52:40 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Jan 12, 3:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> On Jan 12, 2:49=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > >> > =A0 However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of ga= mes > >> > Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not > >> > constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor > >> nor pretends to. That is the usual interjection of Taylor Kingston. > > =A0No, it is the interjection of Phil Innes, who said "GM Nunn was seen > >to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." As you often admonish others, > >"own your own words," Phil. > > If Phil had said something such as, "It's reasonable to infer from the > study GM Nunn did of Carlsbad 1911, that Morphy's actual strength as > compared to contemporary practice, might have been as low as....", > he'd have been on relatively defensible ground. > > Where he ends with egg on his face is that he claimed Nunn himself > made such an estimate, and when asked to produce the quote, he > stutters, stammers, blusters, fumes, insults, and in various ways > dances around the issue in order to avoid admitting he erred. > > The funny thing is, even after being called on his misstatement, Phil > could have retreated to the inference described above with minimal > loss of face and credibility. Phil's actions here somewhat parallel Richard Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. It wasn't the break-in that did Nixon in, illegal though it was. What destroyed him was the cover-up. Just so with Phil. His original misrepresentation of Nunn was wrong, but he really went off the deep end by continuing to insist it was literally true, and trying to cover his tracks with a smokescreen of irrelevancies. What is most laughable here is that Phil seems to think this actually works. But here on rgc we don't need a Congressional investigation and a special prosecutor to uncover the facts, they're on display for all to see. Phil's like a man walking naked down the street, telling everyone he's actually wearing an Armani suit. I wonder if we haven't misdiagnosed Phil. Various hypotheses have been mooted, ranging from habitual carelessness to dyslexia, from lunacy to pathological mendacity. Could it be that, like Sam Sloan, Phil is simply an attention whore? That he'll say anything, true or false, as long as it gets him noticed?       Date: 13 Jan 2009 07:27:45 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever?) On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: >> The funny thing is, even after being called on his misstatement, Phil >> could have retreated to the inference described above with minimal >> loss of face and credibility. > Phil's actions here somewhat parallel Richard Nixon's during the >Watergate scandal. It wasn't the break-in that did Nixon in, illegal >though it was. What destroyed him was the cover-up. Just so with Phil. >His original misrepresentation of Nunn was wrong, but he really went >off the deep end by continuing to insist it was literally true, and >trying to cover his tracks with a smokescreen of irrelevancies. > What is most laughable here is that Phil seems to think this >actually works. I think Spinrad mentioned that Phil employs high school debate techniques -- spew out as many objections as possible as quickly as possible since your opponent loses points for anything not answered. I've noticed when Phil really gets pressed, he starts throwing in comments on almost every phrase. For example, in an exchange with Spinrad on another thread: Jerry Spinrad: > Although Phil seems to think Phil Innes: 'seems to think' [lol] Jerry Spinrad: > this was not clear, Phil Innes: what was not clear? Jerry Spinrad: > there was a response that >although one might normally agree, Phil Innes: what is that in plain language? how tortuous a phrasing! etc. His approach may work better in person. The continual interruptions, questions, disruptions, distractions, outraged posturing, etc., might serve to keep the opponent off balance, make him lose his train of thought. It doesn't work so well on Usenet where one has time to reflect a bit before responding.     Date: 12 Jan 2009 22:38:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 4:30 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >> > However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of games > >> > Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not > >> > constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor > >> nor pretends to. That is the usual interjection of Taylor Kingston. > > No, it is the interjection of Phil Innes, who said "GM Nunn was seen > >to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." As you often admonish others, > >"own your own words," Phil. > If Phil had said something such as, "It's reasonable to infer from the > study GM Nunn did of Carlsbad 1911, that Morphy's actual strength as > compared to contemporary practice, might have been as low as....", > he'd have been on relatively defensible ground. > > Where he ends with egg on his face is that he claimed Nunn himself > made such an estimate, and when asked to produce the quote, he > stutters, stammers, blusters, fumes, insults, and in various ways > dances around the issue in order to avoid admitting he erred. > > The funny thing is, even after being called on his misstatement, Phil > could have retreated to the inference described above with minimal > loss of face and credibility. An astute observation. However, consider this: had the great Dr. IMnes immediately "rephrased" his original claim to better fit the facts, we would never have been treated to the sight of an arrogant Mr. Kingston tripping over his own ego and falling flat on his face! LOL You know what I mean-- that little fiasco in which TK plastered asterisks and underlining to show just how certain-sure he was that Mr. Nunn had only analyzed ONE player, and only the ONE tournament-- a fabrication which was easily shot down by someone called "bull". Surely, this alone was worth enduring another one of Dr. IMnes' innumerable "misadventures". I was struck to read that Dr. IMnes does not stand 100% behind whatever Mr. Nunn has written on this subject, for up 'till now, all his postings gave the general impression that PI could not or would not think for himself, but merely relied upon randomly-selected authority figures to do that for him. In fact, I am a bit shocked. -- help bot     Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:37:37 From: Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 12, 4:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:52:40 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Jan 12, 3:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> On Jan 12, 2:49=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > >> > =A0 However, to return to the immediate issue, whatever number of ga= mes > >> > Nunn analyzed from Carlsbad 1911 or Biel 1993, it still does not > >> > constitute a survey of Morphy's games nor > >> nor pretends to. That is the usual interjection of Taylor Kingston. > > =A0No, it is the interjection of Phil Innes, who said "GM Nunn was seen > >to say that Morphy was a 2300 player." As you often admonish others, > >"own your own words," Phil. > > If Phil had said something such as, "It's reasonable to infer from the > study GM Nunn did of Carlsbad 1911, that Morphy's actual strength as > compared to contemporary practice, might have been as low as....", > he'd have been on relatively defensible ground. If it were reasonable to suspect that correspondents would infer... then what would be the necessity to 'prove' anything? Instead we have not questions relating to Morphy's strength, but quibbkles by people whose orientation to objective anything is actually denied. If they were interested in Morphy's strength according to some 'Fritz' wouldn't they have said so? > Where he ends with egg on his face is that he claimed Nunn himself > made such an estimate, and when asked to produce the quote, he > stutters, stammers, blusters, fumes, insults, and in various ways > dances around the issue in order to avoid admitting he erred. I did not oblige a person for whom I do not understand, from our private and public correspondance, objective fact has any import. Instread Mike Murray, decides that this ability to not jerk a subject around is a disability. > The funny thing is, even after being called on his misstatement, Phil > could have retreated to the inference described above with minimal > loss of face and credibility. Yes, I could have, but did not. The funny thing is that Mike Murray would be required to think about why that is to make a response. He did not. What's new? Same with the FSS stuff. What does Murray care for objective truth? Is he a holy virgin? He can't say why he writes about this subject more than Kingston. Phil Innes       Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:12:37 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Innes Misrepresents Nunn? (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever?) On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:37:37 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >> If Phil had said something such as, "It's reasonable to infer from the >> study GM Nunn did of Carlsbad 1911, that Morphy's actual strength as >> compared to contemporary practice, might have been as low as....", >> he'd have been on relatively defensible ground. >If it were reasonable to suspect that correspondents would infer... >then what would be the necessity to 'prove' anything? Instead we have >not questions relating to Morphy's strength, but quibbkles by people >whose orientation to objective anything is actually denied. If they >were interested in Morphy's strength according to some 'Fritz' >wouldn't they have said so? It seems people were interested in what a well-known GM (Nunn) might have said about Morphy's strength. And Phil Innes told these people what GM Nunn said about Morphy's strength. And Phil told them wrong. And Phil hates, just hates, to admit it. >What does Murray care for objective truth? ...He can't say why he > writes about this subject more than Kingston. Oh, now we gotta say why we write? But, yes, Phil, I *am* able to say why I write about this subject, although your claim that I write more about it than Kingston is demonstrably false (but that's nothing new about your claims, is it?). Here's why: we caught you telling another whopper, Phil, and you won't admit it. And your hapless denials are amusing.   Date: 11 Jan 2009 00:20:24 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 1:49=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 10:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > How many rating points does > > > "outclassed" mean? Surely these after-the-fact interpretations are > > next to worthless. > > I'll take Kortchnoi's word for it. > > "I find it hard to give an exact description of Spassky as a player. > The result of the match in itself indicates that I have not figured > him out sufficiently. =A0Of one =A0thing I am certain, however, Spassky a= t > the present time is superior to all his contemporaries, and has proved > this by his more than convincing victories over the strongest > grandmasters in the world. =A0I do no doubt for a minute =A0that we are > going to have a new champion". > (interview in Shakmaty). > > Before the candidates started, on the other hand: > > "I consider that Geller has better chances, as I think Spassky is in > poor form. =A0The previous qualifying cycle took a lot out of him, so > drained his nervous energy that he didn't do himself justice in the > match with Petrosian. =A0Spassky's results have shown a noticeable > downward =A0trend in recent years ..." > > He doesn't specify these poor results, and unless shared first places > and the 66 olympiad count, neither can I. > > Interesting to see Tal's prediction: > > "I am fully convinced of only one =A0thing - there won't be a the same > sort of runaway score as there was when Geller and Spassky met in > 1965. =A0One has the impression =A0that Spassky is not quite =A0the playe= r > he was then..." > > Of course the score was exactly the same. =A0So two Soviet GMs thought, > at least, that 67 > was a poor year for Spassky, despite winning at Santa Monica in 66. I think you are illustrating, rather clearly, why carefully selected testimonials don't make good evidence. The reason, of course, is that different people have different opinions, the same people have different opinions at different times, etc. Picking out a claim or two proves just about nothing. > > What I am seeing is a string of very good performances and his rating > > going up. Not weird at all. > > I don't see a string of good performances before the rating bump at > all, that's the point. > > From mid to late 66 Fischer's rating rises well above the pack. Given > that the Santa Monica result wasn't much, this can be due only to the > olympiad result, which was pretty stellar at 15/17. =A0 I thought the k- > factor in ratings made it unlikely for one event to have such an > impact at that level, but it seems that it must be =A0the olympiad. The chessmetrics ratings is not an Elo rating. It doesn't exactly have a "k", although the effective "k" would be higher than FIDE ratings - you are correct about that. Chessmetrics ratings looks at recent results. By 1966, all of Fischer's results in the past few years were excellent - at least by the standards of his contemporaries. But if you object to this method, you still have to deal with the fact that even Fischer's FIDE rating passed Spassky's by 1970, according to Taylor Kingston elsewhere in this thread. > > > Spassky had a good result as you've mentioned above, and then a number > > of far less good results, which you've ignored. > > Could you mean first place or shared first place in seven > international tournaments (not counting Santa Monica) from 1965-70? > That's not much compared to Larsen or Kortchnoi, but those Petrosian > matches did cut into his schedule a tad. > > He wasn't winning these by wide margins, in fact shared first a few > times, but it's > really not a set of bad results. > > In olympiads he didn't take a board prize in 66, scoring 10/15 on > second board, =A0scored 71% in 68 and took first prize on board one (2 > Fischer, 3 Larsen) with 79%. > In 1970 he scored only 1.5/1.5 vs Larsen, =A0who took first board for > "the rest of the world" over Fischer's not too strenuous objections. Never said they were "bad", and neither does Chessmetrics. No better than many others, however, > > that Fischer wasn't around for the cycle, he was deserving > > of the World Champion title. He went through a gruelling process, > > prevailed, and is in the history books. But in historical > > terms, he was not that impressive, > > I disagree, strongly. =A0He won all his matches, bar one, and usually by > strong margins, he won every tournament, generally by small margins, > but he won. =A0To me that is very impressive indeed. > > The tournament results of Larsen and Kortchnoi in this time are also > impressive. =A0But their match results, less so, and I am not referring > here only to their losses vs Spassky. > Every GM is "impressive". They could beat me blindfolded and drunk. The question is where he sits in history. Depending on how you define "peak", Chessmetrics lists him as #27 for 1-yr peak, #20 for a 10-yr peak and #10 for 20-yr peak. Taylor Kingston quoted some analyses placing him tied for 14-17, and another at #7. While 7th seems ridiculous, I'm not going to make a big deal over whether he's closer to 14th or 27th. Ultimately, there is really no way to resolve it. What can be said, though, is that most other WCs will be ahead of him. Specifically two of his (and Fischer's) contemporaries, Karpov and Kasparov will be far ahead. Korchnoi, too, based on his later years, but he will always have the stigma of not having made it to WC.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 17:13:40 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 9:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > By choice, Fischer chose not to face some of his contemporaries - > including some of chess' all-time greatest. On what basis am I not > free to include that in judging greatness? > > > - Show quoted text - So, greatness is increased by what one does, and is diminished by what one does not do. And you get to choose what Fischer should have done with his life in order to impress you. I suggest that Fischer was not intending to impress people other than his fellow grandmasters and prospective sponsors. David Ames   Date: 10 Jan 2009 13:49:05 From: William Hyde Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 10:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 2:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: How many rating points does > "outclassed" mean? Surely these after-the-fact interpretations are > next to worthless. I'll take Kortchnoi's word for it. "I find it hard to give an exact description of Spassky as a player. The result of the match in itself indicates that I have not figured him out sufficiently. Of one thing I am certain, however, Spassky at the present time is superior to all his contemporaries, and has proved this by his more than convincing victories over the strongest grandmasters in the world. I do no doubt for a minute that we are going to have a new champion". (interview in Shakmaty). Before the candidates started, on the other hand: "I consider that Geller has better chances, as I think Spassky is in poor form. The previous qualifying cycle took a lot out of him, so drained his nervous energy that he didn't do himself justice in the match with Petrosian. Spassky's results have shown a noticeable downward trend in recent years ..." He doesn't specify these poor results, and unless shared first places and the 66 olympiad count, neither can I. Interesting to see Tal's prediction: "I am fully convinced of only one thing - there won't be a the same sort of runaway score as there was when Geller and Spassky met in 1965. One has the impression that Spassky is not quite the player he was then..." Of course the score was exactly the same. So two Soviet GMs thought, at least, that 67 was a poor year for Spassky, despite winning at Santa Monica in 66. > What I am seeing is a string of very good performances and his rating > going up. Not weird at all. I don't see a string of good performances before the rating bump at all, that's the point. From mid to late 66 Fischer's rating rises well above the pack. Given that the Santa Monica result wasn't much, this can be due only to the olympiad result, which was pretty stellar at 15/17. I thought the k- factor in ratings made it unlikely for one event to have such an impact at that level, but it seems that it must be the olympiad. > Spassky had a good result as you've mentioned above, and then a number > of far less good results, which you've ignored. Could you mean first place or shared first place in seven international tournaments (not counting Santa Monica) from 1965-70? That's not much compared to Larsen or Kortchnoi, but those Petrosian matches did cut into his schedule a tad. He wasn't winning these by wide margins, in fact shared first a few times, but it's really not a set of bad results. In olympiads he didn't take a board prize in 66, scoring 10/15 on second board, scored 71% in 68 and took first prize on board one (2 Fischer, 3 Larsen) with 79%. In 1970 he scored only 1.5/1.5 vs Larsen, who took first board for "the rest of the world" over Fischer's not too strenuous objections. > While your points have some merit in isolation, combining them willy- > nilly > to discredit rating and exaggerate Spassky's achievements does not > impress. Neither willy nor nilly. You have a pretty complete record of Spassky's results from 65 to 70 (probably we are missing soviet team games). Exaggeration? He won the candidate's cycle twice, won his second match vs Petrosian, won three category 15 tournaments and a number of lesser tournaments, and did well in olympiads. with the possible exception of 66. > Fact is, if we look at Chessmetrics point of view, Spassky > won 4 matches to become WC. He beat Geller (#11), Larsen (10), The match took place in July 68. Chessmetrics has Larsen rated 7 in the previous month. > Petrosian (6) The world champion, as it happens. Note that both players in this match had plus scores vs Fischer. Petrosian started the year at 4 and only descended to 6 after the match. > and Korchnoi (2). Also note that he beat Keres, Geller (around 8-9 in the world each) , and Tal (depending on the month, first or second in the world) .in the previous cycle And aside from the Petrosian matches and possibly the Keres match these were not close results. Even against Tal he was +3. As it was not Spassky's fault > that Fischer wasn't around for the cycle, he was deserving > of the World Champion title. He went through a gruelling process, > prevailed, and is in the history books. But in historical > terms, he was not that impressive, I disagree, strongly. He won all his matches, bar one, and usually by strong margins, he won every tournament, generally by small margins, but he won. To me that is very impressive indeed. The tournament results of Larsen and Kortchnoi in this time are also impressive. But their match results, less so, and I am not referring here only to their losses vs Spassky. and Fischer's reputation > must be affected by his decision not to play much stronger > opposition out there. Of course. William Hyde   Date: 10 Jan 2009 13:46:47 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 4:13=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 10, 1:02=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 1:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > I note that Anand recently remarked that the Fischer of the 1970s > > > would get crushed by today's top players. > > =A0 Can you supply a link to that, Phil? Or tell us where it appeared i= n > > print? I'd be interested in knowing Anand's reasons. > > I was stringing a Polgar blog and forgot source, but a google on Anand > Fischer at Times India reveals: > > Fischer was suspicious of computers: Anand - News - Chess - The ... > "It=92s hard to say a Bobby Fischer would not have survived even now." > Anand > offered after a thought. "I mean, most of modern chess is his > offering. ...http://sports.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/374287= 8.cms- > 46k- -Cached- Similar Pages Actually, Phil, you seem to have misread Anand badly. I quote from that brief article: Would a character like Fischer have survived in a time like the present? Are the demands greater than in the 70s? "It=92s hard to say a Bobby Fischer would not have survived even now." Anand offered after a thought. "I mean, most of modern chess is his offering. "Myself and the rest had those moves ready for us when we started out, but it had to take someone to discover them first. Bobby Fischer was that person. "He was that person for entire generations of chess players. His was a singular life in that sense. He=92s made it easier for us today. So, to think he would have struggled... I don=92t think so." In other words, Anand is saying Fischer would do OK now. He would *_not_* have to struggle to keep up in competitive chess today. Anand doesn't think Fischer would dominate like he did in 1972, but neither would he be crushed. I realize you have problems with reading comprehension, and double negatives _can_ be tricky, but this really isn't that hard to understand.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 13:21:55 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 3:48=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 10:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Chessmetrics compares its accuracy vs. those of Elo and finds > > not only that it is generally superior, it is specifically superior > > =A0 The absurdity of chessmetrics vouching for > its own accuracy is self-evident. =A0 Moreover, > they freely use the term "accuracy" when in > fact what they are calculating is /conformity/ > to the simplified model which I believe was > once used by the USCF to guestimate > player rating changes in one's head. There is nothing absurd about presenting evidence in favor of a position. The concept of providing evidence in support of a claim, in contrast to engaging in ignorant ranting, is clearly foreign to help bot. And, of course, Mr. bot has completely misunderstood what has been calculated in case there is anyone stupid enough to take his objections seriously. (It has nothing to do with a "simplified" model) The Chessmetrics algorithm differs from FIDE in a few ways. Correcting the time defect of Elo is an obvious improvement, and I believe the originator claims to have experimented with the appropriate window (arriving at linear decrease over a 4 year period) Another difference is that he introduces factors to avoid overcounting small events (and indirectly penalize inactivity). The logic behind his approach is not persuasive to me, but I have to concede that to the degree I have looked at it, the results appear reasonable. It also has a more sophisticated approach to historical reconstruction than some of the other "historical" Elo approaches. That it predicts results better than Elo is not surprising to me.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 13:13:35 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 1:02=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 1:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I note that Anand recently remarked that the Fischer of the 1970s > > would get crushed by today's top players. > > =A0 Can you supply a link to that, Phil? Or tell us where it appeared in > print? I'd be interested in knowing Anand's reasons. I was stringing a Polgar blog and forgot source, but a google on Anand Fischer at Times India reveals: Fischer was suspicious of computers: Anand - News - Chess - The ... "It=92s hard to say a Bobby Fischer would not have survived even now." Anand offered after a thought. "I mean, most of modern chess is his offering. ... http://sports.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3742878.cms- 46k- -Cached- Similar Pages > > Therefore, though I am in some sympathy with Anand, I see what a mess > > we all got into here where there was a discussion of Morphy > > [incidentally, Fischer's own choice of the greatest player] and where > > another GM, Nunn, was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player. > > > I think you already have Anand's opinion that if the 1972 Fischer > > showed up, he would get swallowed whole. > > =A0 As I have stressed before, all these discussions depend on the > fantasy scenario involved. Some, like me, feel the real test involves > a clone of Morphy (or whoever) growing up in today's world, with all > of today's chess literature and learning aids available to him as it > is to current GMs. That, in my opinion, would test Morphy's innate > chess ability fairly. It would test his aptitude to attend on such things - we already know Capablanca would /not/ do so. He eschewed even Alekhine's non-computer approach. > =A0 Others, like Innes, just want to snatch Morphy from, say, 1851, > plunk him down in 2009, and have him play today's GMs. That is the hypothetical instance. > This would test > the historical Morphy's knowledge and quality of play against today's. Yes. > =A0 I just don't hink the latter scenario is fair. No, its not 'fair' but it is to take Morphy as he was, and see how that would score these days. > To make a somewhat > extreme analogy for the sake of clarity, This is why I and vague-bot attend your posts with keen interest... > suppose we were debating "Who > was the greatest military field commander of all time?" Nominees might > include Hannibal, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, > Napoleon, Lee, Rommel, MacArthur, etc. But it would hardly be fair to > settle the question by insisting that each general fight with only the > weapons of his own time. We'd have ridiculous mismatches like > Hannibal's elephants against Rommel's Panzers, Caesar's swords or > Charlemagne's archers against Napoleon's muskets, Khan's cavalry > against MacArthur's air power. And Patton would beat em all individually and collectively. But it is not any analogy I seek - it is the actual level of play demonstrated by Morphy. As readers already took in Elo projected an improved Morphy to be 26xx, whereas Nunn/Fritz say 2300. This is not an argument between one thing and another, and who knows how Morphy would be these days. But equally its true that according to Nunn Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player. > =A0 By the same token, it would hardly be fair to make Morphy play Anand > armed only with the chess knowledge of 1850. You would not be deciding > which was the better player; you would only be illustrating that more > is known about chess today than was then. Yes - this question of 'fairness' is rather like what computer programmers proclaim for their offspring. It has nothing to do with the level of chess actually played by Morphy - which to believe Fritz is 2300. To then speculate that Morphy would play stronger these days is to project Elo's supposition on the scene on the basis of extrapolated factors which can be measured. This is not a strong case all on its own, and all I say of Morphy is that according to Nunn/ Fritz he is objectively 2300, and according to Elo's idea he is high 26xx. Perhaps you will take a look at what Anand says of Fischer, whicbh does not speculate on an improved Fischer via computer - that is not his point, not mine about Morphy - but it /is/ to point out that even the 72 Ficher couldn't handle today's elite. Phil Innes   Date: 10 Jan 2009 12:14:20 From: William Hyde Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:31=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 2:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > Chessmetrics, unlike Elo ratings, have a time component. Generally > this makes it more meaningful in snapshot comparisons. So if you are > idle, your rating starts declining. That's likely what is going on > with > Fischer. I do find this weird. It was after these eighteen months away, after all, that he came back to play better than ever. This time taking on the best and beating them. > > I do know that Spassky's only Chessmetrics Top100 > performance is his Candidates win over Korchnoi > (#96). i.e. #3 defeating #2. To me, that's more evidence of > Spassky really not belonging with the big names. He won two candidates cycles. only Kortchnoi, and Smyslov have done that (Karpov was seeded late in his second win). That's not just big, it's enormous. > > Korchnoi is often overlooked, but he didn't come > out of nowhere in the late 70s. Quite true. He was a candidate as far back as 62, after all, and had won the Soviet championship three times in the 1960s. He won tournaments by such wide margins that someone proposed he be called the "tournament champion", a title that was also proposed for Larsen. William Hyde   Date: 10 Jan 2009 12:02:10 From: William Hyde Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:09=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which > > should be obvious. > > =A0 OK, Bill, I'll bite. It's not obvious to me. Please explain? :-) I was not being entirely serious, but Neil Brennan has guessed it. Because he won the world championship as an amateur. Yes, Botvinnik had a real carreer also, but also state support and copious time off if he needed it. William Hyde   Date: 10 Jan 2009 11:41:16 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 7:56=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 4:48=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 12:43=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It seems like your estimates of Spassky's strength have > > more to do with his place in the political hierarchy than > > with how he played. > > =A0 I have no idea where you get that idea, Dave. Historically, the two > GMs most obviously helped by political connections were Botvinnik and > Karpov, not Spassky. In Spassky's case the "help" he got may actually > have hurt him in 1972, as he was given contradictory advice and, if I > recall correctly, some assistants he found uncongenial were forced on > him. It seemed that you interjected politics in a discussion of playing strength - favoring Spassky over Karpov because the latter supposedly got more state support. That seemed to explain why, in my mind, you were abandoning your usual objectivity in order to pump up Spassky. > > > > > > =A0 Well, if you are going to claim that Fischer is not among the all= - > > > time greats, you will be in a very small minority. > > > His WC run, plus a few other feats, certainly gets him in the top 10. > > =A0 Fischer only in the top 10? Well, we will have to agree to differ on > that. But thank you for a stimulating discussion. I didn't say where in the top 10. Probably around #6. I guess I just have a hard time comparing his record to the giants who competed at a high level for 20+ years.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 10:02:09 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 1:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > I note that Anand recently remarked that the Fischer of the 1970s > would get crushed by today's top players. Can you supply a link to that, Phil? Or tell us where it appeared in print? I'd be interested in knowing Anand's reasons. > Therefore, though I am in some sympathy with Anand, I see what a mess > we all got into here where there was a discussion of Morphy > [incidentally, Fischer's own choice of the greatest player] and where > another GM, Nunn, was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player. > > I think you already have Anand's opinion that if the 1972 Fischer > showed up, he would get swallowed whole. As I have stressed before, all these discussions depend on the fantasy scenario involved. Some, like me, feel the real test involves a clone of Morphy (or whoever) growing up in today's world, with all of today's chess literature and learning aids available to him as it is to current GMs. That, in my opinion, would test Morphy's innate chess ability fairly. Others, like Innes, just want to snatch Morphy from, say, 1851, plunk him down in 2009, and have him play today's GMs. This would test the historical Morphy's knowledge and quality of play against today's. I just don't hink the latter scenario is fair. To make a somewhat extreme analogy for the sake of clarity, suppose we were debating "Who was the greatest military field commander of all time?" Nominees might include Hannibal, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel, MacArthur, etc. But it would hardly be fair to settle the question by insisting that each general fight with only the weapons of his own time. We'd have ridiculous mismatches like Hannibal's elephants against Rommel's Panzers, Caesar's swords or Charlemagne's archers against Napoleon's muskets, Khan's cavalry against MacArthur's air power. By the same token, it would hardly be fair to make Morphy play Anand armed only with the chess knowledge of 1850. You would not be deciding which was the better player; you would only be illustrating that more is known about chess today than was then.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 07:56:54 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 4:48=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 12:43=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems like your estimates of Spassky's strength have > more to do with his place in the political hierarchy than > with how he played. I have no idea where you get that idea, Dave. Historically, the two GMs most obviously helped by political connections were Botvinnik and Karpov, not Spassky. In Spassky's case the "help" he got may actually have hurt him in 1972, as he was given contradictory advice and, if I recall correctly, some assistants he found uncongenial were forced on him. > > > =A0 Well, if you are going to claim that Fischer is not among the all- > > time greats, you will be in a very small minority. > > His WC run, plus a few other feats, certainly gets him in the top 10. Fischer only in the top 10? Well, we will have to agree to differ on that. But thank you for a stimulating discussion.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 07:26:21 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > Cordially, Phil Innes > > The Frozen Ct Valley > > Deep North, etc > > Here. =A0Let me throw this log on the fire. =A0:) > > The greatest player ever was and is Rybka. =A0Let the human ghosts rest > in peace! > > Rev J.D. Walker Actually, throwing a log at the wood fire just makes the thing clang. But its good heat if you can get it insider the box - and reassuring to still see 4 cords of woods I stacked this summer, which should last until Spring or June, whichever comes... But I think Neil Brennen won the contest with Max-the-amateur, that is, if we discount Botvinnik who, we are asked to believe had a full time engineering job. As for humor, it is not permitted Oct-May, unless addressing flatlanders in SUVs [89% of flatlanders drive SUVs, and 1% of them have actually taken their vehicle 'off-road', and 50% of that 1% did it on purpose] when the usual facetiousness is actually mandatory... but I digress - why Euwe? It can't be that unlike Tal and Alekhine for examples he won the W CH while sober? No, my guess, a pretty certain guess now that I've mulled it over, is that the answer as something to do with herrings. Cordially, Phil Innes   Date: 10 Jan 2009 06:22:23 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 8:53=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:09=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 5:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which > > > should be obvious. > > > =A0 OK, Bill, I'll bite. It's not obvious to me. Please explain? :-) Perhaps because Euwe was NOT a chess professional? > Can I bite too? We can't think here because its so cold, What excuse do you use the other 364 days? and thought > itself freezes and cracks as soon it occurs. There is some relief in > sight, since I note that at 8:50 am the temperature has already soared > to 1 degree F. > > Fortunately the 5-10 inches snow due tonight should raise temperatures > sufficiently for though to occur and survive for minutes at a time. > > Thank you for considering our plight. > > Cordially, Phil Innes > The Frozen Ct Valley > Deep North, etc   Date: 10 Jan 2009 06:00:57 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 5:53=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:09=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 5:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which > > > should be obvious. > > > =A0 OK, Bill, I'll bite. It's not obvious to me. Please explain? :-) > > Can I bite too? We can't think here because its so cold, and thought > itself freezes and cracks as soon it occurs. There is some relief in > sight, since I note that at 8:50 am the temperature has already soared > to 1 degree F. > > Fortunately the 5-10 inches snow due tonight should raise temperatures > sufficiently for though to occur and survive for minutes at a time. > > Thank you for considering our plight. > > Cordially, Phil Innes > The Frozen Ct Valley > Deep North, etc Here. Let me throw this log on the fire. :) The greatest player ever was and is Rybka. Let the human ghosts rest in peace! Rev J.D. Walker   Date: 10 Jan 2009 05:53:31 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:09=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which > > should be obvious. > > =A0 OK, Bill, I'll bite. It's not obvious to me. Please explain? :-) Can I bite too? We can't think here because its so cold, and thought itself freezes and cracks as soon it occurs. There is some relief in sight, since I note that at 8:50 am the temperature has already soared to 1 degree F. Fortunately the 5-10 inches snow due tonight should raise temperatures sufficiently for though to occur and survive for minutes at a time. Thank you for considering our plight. Cordially, Phil Innes The Frozen Ct Valley Deep North, etc   Date: 10 Jan 2009 05:36:31 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 10, 6:55=A0am, "Marlon" <[email protected] > wrote: > I always thought that it would've made more sense for Fischer to have fac= ed > Karpov in '92 rather than Spassky. If it was really a 1975 defending for = the > world title. He beat Spassky in '72, and Karpov was the next challenger. > What sense did it make to face Spassky again in '92 unless Spassky defeat= ed > Karpov in the '74 qualifing match? As Dr. IMnes has pointed out, it makes sense if you think about it another way-- as an easy five million bucks; not as some sort of pretense at resuming the FIDE world championship cycle of 1975, won by Mr. Karpov. > Just a quick opinion from someone who reads chess info every now and then= , > I'd say that Fischer was not afraid to face Karpov in '75, he was just wa= y > too obnoxious to be reasoned with that he left. But in 1992, I think he w= as > afraid to face Karpov, so he went back to his comfort zone against Spassk= y. Yes, well... it was not Mr. Karpov he would need to worry about. By 1992, there was a new kid in town-- Gary Kasparov. Mr. Karpov dominated world chess from *roughly* 1975 to 1985, after which GK took over the reigns. -- help bot   Date: 10 Jan 2009 03:48:48 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 10:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Chessmetrics has Fischer's rating changing throughout the eighteen > > months (basically 69 and part of 68/70) in which he played only one > > game. =A0Weirdness? =A0I think so. > Weird only if you view Elo rating as the holy writ. > The failure to include time is a fairly obvious defect of the Elo > method. Such comments, which merely deride FIDE ratings and offer zero substantiation of the correctness of chessmetrics' own, miss the mark. The fact is, sometimes these models get the direction of the trend wrong, arbitrarily crediting for improvement or penalizing a player for inactivity when he may well be improving. One example is Bobby Fischer, whose inactivity before 1972 might be penalized though he was improving. After 1972, he ought to have been dropped... but instead, he was generally carried, appearing on lists of top five-year rankings and whatnot. > Chessmetrics compares its accuracy vs. those of Elo and finds > not only that it is generally superior, it is specifically superior The absurdity of chessmetrics vouching for its own accuracy is self-evident. Moreover, they freely use the term "accuracy" when in fact what they are calculating is /conformity/ to the simplified model which I believe was once used by the USCF to guestimate player rating changes in one's head. > Of course, I'm not unsympathetic in general to the argument that > match games count more and therefore should count more when rating. > But the default approach is to treat all games equally. There is nothing wrong with this approach. > > And it measures results, not strength. =A0Anyone (except Tal and > > Kortchnoi) who plays a hundred games a year against strong oppositions > > will play worse than if they were restricted to sixty games or so. =A0A= t > > the very least, draws will be offered to weaker players where fatigue > > makes this prudent. =A0Fischer was famous for playing on when others > > would have conceded the draw. =A0This can be good for the rating, but i= t > > is easier to do when you are only playing 40 games a year. You seem to have forgotten something; chess ratings are supposed to predict future results, not whine about why some players can only draw, while others win and win. > > Larsen (also known for not drawing often) commented that there is a > > difference in playing to win a tournament, as opposed to playing to > > win a game. =A0If you can lock in first place by offering a draw to a > > weaker opponent, you do so, despite the rating loss. > > It doesn't mean you are a weaker player. But it does mean that you are more likely to repeat this sort of behavior; thus, the actual ratings are an accurate predictor of *results*. > In fact, as one of my anti-draw crusades in this newsgroup, I once > proposed that draws should not be rateable events, for the reasons > you mentioned. (i.e. Draws aren't always the result of a real contest) This idea wrongly assumes that those of us who play real chess do not deserve to have our legitimate draws counted. It's a bad idea, if for no other reason than the fact that we might as well resign and save the trouble of fighting for a draw against those annoying grandmasters; after a hard fight, we will lose the next round anyway, due to exhaustion. The proper solution is to simply enforce the rules (which of course forbid agreeing to draw before a real contest has even begun). Now, finding real TDs who will not cowtow to the grandmaster-draw cheaters is another matter; this is merely an admin- istrative matter. > Fact is, if we look at Chessmetrics point of view, Spassky > won 4 matches to become WC. He beat Geller (#11), Larsen (10), > Petrosian (6) and Korchnoi (2). As it was not Spassky's fault > that Fischer wasn't around for the cycle, he was deserving > of the World Champion title. He went through a gruelling process, > prevailed, and is in the history books. But in historical > terms, he was not that impressive, and Fischer's reputation > must be affected by his decision not to play much stronger > opposition out there. In historical terms, all this obsession over Bobby Fischer will not amount to a hill of beans; after all the rabit Fischer fanatics have died off, BF will be remembered for the peculiarity of having interrupted a long string of Russians in attaining the title. But the trends will dominate. They will say that at first, the Italians dominated chess; then the French, followed by the British. At some point power shifted to Germany, but, after a brief intermission for a one-man show in Cuba, to Russia, which remained the dominant force in chess for a very long time. Finally, India and China entered the fracas (but not before computers took over, laughing and giggling at our tactical blind- ness). BF will be but a blip on the radar, in historical terms. -- help bot   Date: 09 Jan 2009 19:37:51 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 2:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 3:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 11:13=A0am, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hmmm. Chessmetrics shows Spassky normally > > 3rd or 4th in the world during the period 1965-70. > > (Spassky is 1st for half a year.) Fischer is mostly, > > but not consistently, 1st. > > > This could be a case of Chessmetrics weirdness, > > Chessmetrics has Fischer's rating changing throughout the eighteen > months (basically 69 and part of 68/70) in which he played only one > game. =A0Weirdness? =A0I think so. > Weird only if you view Elo rating as the holy writ. The failure to include time is a fairly obvious defect of the Elo method. Chessmetrics compares its accuracy vs. those of Elo and finds not only that it is generally superior, it is specifically superior for Spassky, Korchnoi, and Karpov, http://db.chessmetrics.com/Documents/FIDECM.htm Unfortunately, Fischer is not included since his total number of games isn't that high. > It has Kortchnoi ranking ahead of Spassky, who beat him 6.5-3.5 in a > match at this time. And you will surely note that Kortchnoi had much better tournament results than Spassky. Spassky's victory over Kortchnoi was the very best result of his career. Kortchnoi's loss was abnormally poor during that period. Of course, I'm not unsympathetic in general to the argument that match games count more and therefore should count more when rating. But the default approach is to treat all games equally. > And really, the games were not close, Spassky simply outclassed him, > as Kortchnoi said at the time. > Funny then, that no other chessplayers (besides Fischer) were running up tournament numbers like Kortchnoi. How many rating points does "outclassed" mean? Surely these after-the-fact interpretations are next to worthless. > Fischer's big jump comes in 1966, when his only international events > were finishing second (behind Spassky) at the Piatagorsky cup, and > doing well (second best score) on board one in the olympiad, after > which his wins of 1967 don't seem to do much. > Weirdness? =A0Yes indeed. What I am seeing is a string of very good performances and his rating going up. Not weird at all. Spassky had a good result as you've mentioned above, and then a number of far less good results, which you've ignored. > > I appreciate and enjoy the Chessmetrics site. =A0It is a treasure > trove. =A0But not holy writ. > > but > > > my first inclination is that you are letting subjective factors > > (such and such events are "important", others aren't) > > It isn't subjective if Spassky wins a category 15 vs Fischer winning a > category 12. =A0It is a real difference. =A0Then comes the question of wh= o > is stronger, the one who wins by a small margin vs the best in the > world, or the one who kills the most rabbits? =A0(Of course, not all > Fischer's opponents were "mere" IMs, and Spassky did win events by > wide margins fairly often). > > > get in the way of the cold hard data. > > In the first place it is a mistake to think that the rating formula is > "cold hard data". =A0It isn't. It is a very good piece of work by Dr > Elo, but not perfect. > > And it measures results, not strength. =A0Anyone (except Tal and > Kortchnoi) who plays a hundred games a year against strong oppositions > will play worse than if they were restricted to sixty games or so. =A0At > the very least, draws will be offered to weaker players where fatigue > makes this prudent. =A0Fischer was famous for playing on when others > would have conceded the draw. =A0This can be good for the rating, but it > is easier to do when you are only playing 40 games a year. > > Larsen (also known for not drawing often) commented that there is a > difference in playing to win a tournament, as opposed to playing to > win a game. =A0If you can lock in first place by offering a draw to a > weaker opponent, you do so, despite the rating loss. > It doesn't mean you are a weaker player. In fact, as one of my anti-draw crusades in this newsgroup, I once proposed that draws should not be rateable events, for the reasons you mentioned. (i.e. Draws aren't always the result of a real contest) While your points have some merit in isolation, combining them willy- nilly to discredit rating and exaggerate Spassky's achievements does not impress. Fact is, if we look at Chessmetrics point of view, Spassky won 4 matches to become WC. He beat Geller (#11), Larsen (10), Petrosian (6) and Korchnoi (2). As it was not Spassky's fault that Fischer wasn't around for the cycle, he was deserving of the World Champion title. He went through a gruelling process, prevailed, and is in the history books. But in historical terms, he was not that impressive, and Fischer's reputation must be affected by his decision not to play much stronger opposition out there.   Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:31:46 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 2:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 3:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 11:13=A0am, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hmmm. Chessmetrics shows Spassky normally > > 3rd or 4th in the world during the period 1965-70. > > (Spassky is 1st for half a year.) Fischer is mostly, > > but not consistently, 1st. > > > This could be a case of Chessmetrics weirdness, > > Chessmetrics has Fischer's rating changing throughout the eighteen > months (basically 69 and part of 68/70) in which he played only one > game. =A0Weirdness? =A0I think so. Chessmetrics, unlike Elo ratings, have a time component. Generally this makes it more meaningful in snapshot comparisons. So if you are idle, your rating starts declining. That's likely what is going on with Fischer. > > It has Kortchnoi ranking ahead of Spassky, who beat him 6.5-3.5 in a > match at this time. > And really, the games were not close, Spassky simply outclassed him, > as Kortchnoi said at the time. > > Fischer's big jump comes in 1966, when his only international events > were finishing second (behind Spassky) at the Piatagorsky cup, and > doing well (second best score) on board one in the olympiad, after > which his wins of 1967 don't seem to do much. > Weirdness? =A0Yes indeed. > > I appreciate and enjoy the Chessmetrics site. =A0It is a treasure > trove. =A0But not holy writ. I'll try to look into it. Sometimes the "time window" aspect gives ratings that are counterintuitive to those used to Elo ratings. For example, as you get further away from a past bad result due to the passage of time, the rating rises etc. By the way, I don't believe Chessmetrics uses FIDE ratings. It generates its own ratings along modified Elo principles. I do know that Spassky's only Chessmetrics Top100 performance is his Candidates win over Korchnoi (#96). i.e. #3 defeating #2. To me, that's more evidence of Spassky really not belonging with the big names. Korchnoi is often overlooked, but he didn't come out of nowhere in the late 70s. > > but > > > my first inclination is that you are letting subjective factors > > (such and such events are "important", others aren't) > > It isn't subjective if Spassky wins a category 15 vs Fischer winning a > category 12. =A0It is a real difference. =A0Then comes the question of wh= o > is stronger, the one who wins by a small margin vs the best in the > world, or the one who kills the most rabbits? =A0(Of course, not all > Fischer's opponents were "mere" IMs, and Spassky did win events by > wide margins fairly often). > > > get in the way of the cold hard data. > > In the first place it is a mistake to think that the rating formula is > "cold hard data". =A0It isn't. It is a very good piece of work by Dr > Elo, but not perfect. > > And it measures results, not strength. =A0Anyone (except Tal and > Kortchnoi) who plays a hundred games a year against strong oppositions > will play worse than if they were restricted to sixty games or so. =A0At > the very least, draws will be offered to weaker players where fatigue > makes this prudent. =A0Fischer was famous for playing on when others > would have conceded the draw. =A0This can be good for the rating, but it > is easier to do when you are only playing 40 games a year. > > Larsen (also known for not drawing often) commented that there is a > difference in playing to win a tournament, as opposed to playing to > win a game. =A0If you can lock in first place by offering a draw to a > weaker opponent, you do so, despite the rating loss. > It doesn't mean you are a weaker player. > > > In any case, it's tangential (actually supportive) to my > > original point - namely that Fischer's historical legacy > > is heavily weighted to his 72 conquest of the world > > championship. > > Yes indeed. =A0If Fischer had gone on over the next decade or so, > winning strong tournaments and successfully defending his title a > couple of times, =A0I would at least think of him as possibly the > greatest player ever. =A0As it is, I put Lasker and Kasparov as > incontestably far ahead of him and, come to think of it, Tal as well. > > The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which > should be obvious. > > William Hyde   Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:09:14 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:04=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote: > > The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which > should be obvious. OK, Bill, I'll bite. It's not obvious to me. Please explain? :-)   Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:04:04 From: William Hyde Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 3:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 11:13=A0am, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hmmm. Chessmetrics shows Spassky normally > 3rd or 4th in the world during the period 1965-70. > (Spassky is 1st for half a year.) Fischer is mostly, > but not consistently, 1st. > > This could be a case of Chessmetrics weirdness, Chessmetrics has Fischer's rating changing throughout the eighteen months (basically 69 and part of 68/70) in which he played only one game. Weirdness? I think so. It has Kortchnoi ranking ahead of Spassky, who beat him 6.5-3.5 in a match at this time. And really, the games were not close, Spassky simply outclassed him, as Kortchnoi said at the time. Fischer's big jump comes in 1966, when his only international events were finishing second (behind Spassky) at the Piatagorsky cup, and doing well (second best score) on board one in the olympiad, after which his wins of 1967 don't seem to do much. Weirdness? Yes indeed. I appreciate and enjoy the Chessmetrics site. It is a treasure trove. But not holy writ. but > my first inclination is that you are letting subjective factors > (such and such events are "important", others aren't) It isn't subjective if Spassky wins a category 15 vs Fischer winning a category 12. It is a real difference. Then comes the question of who is stronger, the one who wins by a small margin vs the best in the world, or the one who kills the most rabbits? (Of course, not all Fischer's opponents were "mere" IMs, and Spassky did win events by wide margins fairly often). > get in the way of the cold hard data. In the first place it is a mistake to think that the rating formula is "cold hard data". It isn't. It is a very good piece of work by Dr Elo, but not perfect. And it measures results, not strength. Anyone (except Tal and Kortchnoi) who plays a hundred games a year against strong oppositions will play worse than if they were restricted to sixty games or so. At the very least, draws will be offered to weaker players where fatigue makes this prudent. Fischer was famous for playing on when others would have conceded the draw. This can be good for the rating, but it is easier to do when you are only playing 40 games a year. Larsen (also known for not drawing often) commented that there is a difference in playing to win a tournament, as opposed to playing to win a game. If you can lock in first place by offering a draw to a weaker opponent, you do so, despite the rating loss. It doesn't mean you are a weaker player. > In any case, it's tangential (actually supportive) to my > original point - namely that Fischer's historical legacy > is heavily weighted to his 72 conquest of the world > championship. Yes indeed. If Fischer had gone on over the next decade or so, winning strong tournaments and successfully defending his title a couple of times, I would at least think of him as possibly the greatest player ever. As it is, I put Lasker and Kasparov as incontestably far ahead of him and, come to think of it, Tal as well. The greatest player ever, of course, was Euwe, for reasons which should be obvious. William Hyde   Date: 09 Jan 2009 13:48:42 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 12:43=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 2:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 7:13=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 9:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 5:30=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wro= te: > > > > > > =A0 =A0And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'= d refer > > > > > to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. > > > > > Exactly. A discussion of Fischer's "greatness" largely stems from h= is > > > > WC run. I don't deny there are some other highlights, which no doub= t > > > > you'll list arguing against some position I haven't taken. > > > > =A0 My apologies if I have misinterpreted your position. I don't want= to > > > seem overly argumentative here. I basically agree with you that > > > Kasparov's career record is more impressive than Fischer's. It just > > > seems to me that you underrate what Fischer did, and offer some > > > invalid arguments in support of that view, such as that "By 1972, whe= n > > > he lost to Fischer, [Spassky] was probably already surpassed by > > > Karpov," and that "Spassky doesn't match up that well to others who'v= e > > > been world champion." Neither fits the facts. > > > Chessmetrics gives historical rankings for "x" year peaks, and you can > > change x. For x =3D 1, Fischer is right at the top and I can't argue > > with that. > > For anything bigger than 1, he's not at the top, and for 20-year peak, > > he's > > not even on the list. For a value like 3-years, Fischer comes in at > > number two > > (behind Kasparov) > > and Spassky comes at #26, well behind most world > > champions, and even behind several non-champions. So that supports my > > claim concerning Spassky's historical prowess. > > =A0 Well, Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics is not the only mathematician to > take a stab at this. Others' conclusions differ from his. For example, > Nathan Divinsky's table of "Best Ten-Year Strengths" on page 309 of > "Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters" (1994) has Kasparov #1, Fischer > #2, Karpov #3, and Spassky #7, behind Capablanca, Botvinnik and > Lasker. The Fischer-era champ who comes out worst there is Tal, at > #21. Another surprising low rank there is Alekhine at #19. Divinsky's > top 1-year rating goes to Morphy. > =A0 Englishman Sir Richard Clarke, a BCF ratings expert, tried Elo-style > retroactive grading, but I don't have an unadulterated table of his > results. Fox & James give a combined/averaged Clarke/Elo table, with > FIDE ratings of later players mixed in, on pages 119-121 of "The Even > More Complete Chess Addict" (1993). It's not clear what it uses for a > peak period; I'd guess 5 years (as Elo did). It has Fischer and > Kasparov tied at #1, followed by Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, > Botvinnik & Karpov (tie), Ivanchuk & Tal (tie), Smyslov, Morphy & > Petrosian (tie), Keres, and then finally Spassky in a tie for > 14th-17th with Gelfand, Korchnoi and Reshevsky. > > =A0 From this I'd draw two conclusions, no, more like caveats: (1) these > mathematical estimates can produce highly varying results, and (2) > Chessmetrics seems to underrate both Spassky and Fischer compared to > the others. > > > As far as Karpov being > > better than Spassky in 1972, I have less ammunition. Their > > chessmetrics ratings > > are nearly the same. But can any sane person really feel that the 72 > > Spassky > > was a more dangerous opponent than Karpov, knowing that Karpov > > achieved > > much higher heights than Spassky ever had, a few years later? > > =A0 The issue I addressed was your claim that by 1972 Karpov had already > surpassed Spassky. What Karpov did a few years later does not bear on > that. Certainly they were getting close in 1972, but it's hard to make > a case that Karpov was clearly better _then_, either in terms of Elo > rating or practical results. Their head-to-head record thru 1972 was > +1 -0 =3D1 in Spassky's favor. Karpov did co-win a big tournament at > Moscow in December 1971, where he and Stein tied 1=BD points ahead of > Spassky, who came =3D6th with Tal, but at that time Spassky was more > concerned with preparing for Fischer. > =A0 As of late 1973, Spassky was still rated slightly above Karpov, 2665 > to 2660, after winning the very strong 41st USSR Ch ahead of Karpov. > Ironically, by doing so he may have assured Karpov's future. The > Soviet bureaucrats, particularly Baturinsky, were very upset that > Spassky won, because to them he symbolized their greatest failure. > They wanted new blood, and so withdrew from Spassky whatever support > he still had and threw everything behind Karpov as their new Golden > Boy (see "The Soviet Championships" by Cafferty & Taimanov). From that > point on, it becomes hard to determine how much of Karpov's success > was due to his ability and how much to political support. > It seems like your estimates of Spassky's strength have more to do with his place in the political hierarchy than with how he played. I'll grant that Spassky generally comes across as a nice guy (classy when Fischer was classless), he played by the rules and got to the top, etc. I certainly wish there were more Spasskys in the chess world. But he's not in the same league as either Karpov or Fischer when it comes to over-the-board results. > > For that matter, I don't recall anyone arguing that Spassky actually > > played well in the 72 match. > > =A0 It's an oddity that World Championship matches often show the > players performing at less than their best. Something to do with the > strain and pressure, it's said. > > > > > > > BTW, I am not suggesting that Chessmetrics is without flaws. (Have > > posted > > on them myself) However, for discussions of things like "all-time > > greatness" > > it has *far* fewer flaws than FIDE ratings. > > > > > > > His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as= that > > > > > > was, > > > > > > the number of games involved wasn't that high. > > > > > > =A0 Please tell us how many games you require before a "world > > > > > championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other > > > > > player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Che= cking > > > > > FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fisch= er, I > > > > > see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. > > > > > Exactly my point. Neither Fischer nor anyone else has an achievemen= t > > > > like that. > > > > =A0 Eh? Fischer had no achievement like what Fischer did? I'm sorry, = I > > > have trouble understanding that. > > > Fischer's performance was not "typical" Fischer. It was > > extraordinary FOR HIM. Suggesting that it was representative > > of his career is just plain wrong. > > =A0 I never suggested that it was representative of his career. I was > (A) questioning your nonsensical (to be fair, probably hastily > written) statement that even Fischer did not do what Fischer did, Fischer had not done what Fischer did. > (B) pointing out that no one else ever had a remotely comparable > achievement in the Candidates cycle. With which I agree. I said it first in fact. > > > So the question becomes whether winning one tournament and > > 4 matches, even by ridiculous margins, is enough to qualify > > for all-time greatness? > > =A0 Well, if you are going to claim that Fischer is not among the all- > time greats, you will be in a very small minority. > His WC run, plus a few other feats, certainly gets him in the top 10. > > > > > > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achieveme= nt. I > > > > > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping hi= s > > > > > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." I certainly a= gree > > > > > with you that Kasparov accomplished more over his career, but I c= annot > > > > > share your low regard for what Fischer did.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. I am in awe of > > > > that Candidates run as any. But it is not like winning impressively > > > > year after year - against all comers. Surely you don't deny that > > > > it's reasonable for a discussions of "greatness" to include longevi= ty? > > > > =A0 Again, my apologies if I have misinterpreted you. And I certainly > > > agree with your last two sentences. However, Fischer did "win > > > impressively year after year against all comers" for a pretty good > > > span. In nine international tournaments 1965-70 he came 1st seven > > > times, 2nd twice. The two 2nd-place finishes were only =BD-point behi= nd > > > the winner (Smyslov at Havana 1965 and Spassky at Santa Monica 1966). > > > In the nine tournaments, he outdistanced the likes of Petrosian, > > > Larsen, Portisch, Smyslov, Geller, Kholmov, Unzicker, Gligoric, > > > Matulovic, Hort, Gheorghiu, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Panno, Najdorf, > > > Reshevsky, H=FCbner, Taimanov, Uhlmann, Polugaevsky and other greats. > > > All this before his Candidates/WCh run where he demolished everyone. > > > =A0 It is a tragedy for chess that Fischer stopped playing when proba= bly > > > a decade or more of comparable accomplishment lay before him. I quite > > > agree that on the basis of longevity alone Kasparov, and perhaps > > > Karpov, must rank above Fischer on the all-time great list. What I > > > respecfully disagree with is that you seem to downgrade Fischer's > > > achievement based on faulty arguments about Spassky's supposed > > > weakness. > > > My argument did not hinge on Spassky's absolute "weakness", though > > I do think that Spassky's best chess was behind him in 1972. His > > relative weakness to much stronger opponents post-1972 is the issue > > at hand. > > =A0 As late as 1977 Spassky was still winning Candidate Matches. Had he > beaten Korchnoi in the final match, he would have played Karpov for > the title in 1978. As late as 1983 he was still winning top-rank > tournaments, such as Linares 1983, ahead of (guess who?) Karpov, > Andersson, Yusupov, Miles, Timman, Geller, Hort, Seirawan and Larsen. > As late as 1984 he was still in the FIDE top 10. I would be delighted > to be afflicted with that level of "relative weakness." > =A0 I will readily concede that overall Karpov's record is greater than > Spassky's, but I feel you are underrating Spassky based on > insufficient data.- Hide quoted text - This would be great evidence to refute a claim such as "After 1972, Spassky (a wonderful nice guy non-communist!) was unable to play chess at all. He was a complete patzer, and may have forgotten how to castle." Let me know if somebody makes such a claim. Meanwhile his relative weakness to the K's (Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov) goes unrefuted. > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:43:54 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 2:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 9, 7:13=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 9:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 5:30=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote= : > > > > > =A0 =A0And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'd = refer > > > > to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. > > > > Exactly. A discussion of Fischer's "greatness" largely stems from his > > > WC run. I don't deny there are some other highlights, which no doubt > > > you'll list arguing against some position I haven't taken. > > > =A0 My apologies if I have misinterpreted your position. I don't want t= o > > seem overly argumentative here. I basically agree with you that > > Kasparov's career record is more impressive than Fischer's. It just > > seems to me that you underrate what Fischer did, and offer some > > invalid arguments in support of that view, such as that "By 1972, when > > he lost to Fischer, [Spassky] was probably already surpassed by > > Karpov," and that "Spassky doesn't match up that well to others who've > > been world champion." Neither fits the facts. > > Chessmetrics gives historical rankings for "x" year peaks, and you can > change x. For x =3D 1, Fischer is right at the top and I can't argue > with that. > For anything bigger than 1, he's not at the top, and for 20-year peak, > he's > not even on the list. For a value like 3-years, Fischer comes in at > number two > (behind Kasparov) > and Spassky comes at #26, well behind most world > champions, and even behind several non-champions. So that supports my > claim concerning Spassky's historical prowess. Well, Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics is not the only mathematician to take a stab at this. Others' conclusions differ from his. For example, Nathan Divinsky's table of "Best Ten-Year Strengths" on page 309 of "Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters" (1994) has Kasparov #1, Fischer #2, Karpov #3, and Spassky #7, behind Capablanca, Botvinnik and Lasker. The Fischer-era champ who comes out worst there is Tal, at #21. Another surprising low rank there is Alekhine at #19. Divinsky's top 1-year rating goes to Morphy. Englishman Sir Richard Clarke, a BCF ratings expert, tried Elo-style retroactive grading, but I don't have an unadulterated table of his results. Fox & James give a combined/averaged Clarke/Elo table, with FIDE ratings of later players mixed in, on pages 119-121 of "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" (1993). It's not clear what it uses for a peak period; I'd guess 5 years (as Elo did). It has Fischer and Kasparov tied at #1, followed by Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik & Karpov (tie), Ivanchuk & Tal (tie), Smyslov, Morphy & Petrosian (tie), Keres, and then finally Spassky in a tie for 14th-17th with Gelfand, Korchnoi and Reshevsky. From this I'd draw two conclusions, no, more like caveats: (1) these mathematical estimates can produce highly varying results, and (2) Chessmetrics seems to underrate both Spassky and Fischer compared to the others. > As far as Karpov being > better than Spassky in 1972, I have less ammunition. Their > chessmetrics ratings > are nearly the same. But can any sane person really feel that the 72 > Spassky > was a more dangerous opponent than Karpov, knowing that Karpov > achieved > much higher heights than Spassky ever had, a few years later? The issue I addressed was your claim that by 1972 Karpov had already surpassed Spassky. What Karpov did a few years later does not bear on that. Certainly they were getting close in 1972, but it's hard to make a case that Karpov was clearly better _then_, either in terms of Elo rating or practical results. Their head-to-head record thru 1972 was +1 -0 =3D1 in Spassky's favor. Karpov did co-win a big tournament at Moscow in December 1971, where he and Stein tied 1=BD points ahead of Spassky, who came =3D6th with Tal, but at that time Spassky was more concerned with preparing for Fischer. As of late 1973, Spassky was still rated slightly above Karpov, 2665 to 2660, after winning the very strong 41st USSR Ch ahead of Karpov. Ironically, by doing so he may have assured Karpov's future. The Soviet bureaucrats, particularly Baturinsky, were very upset that Spassky won, because to them he symbolized their greatest failure. They wanted new blood, and so withdrew from Spassky whatever support he still had and threw everything behind Karpov as their new Golden Boy (see "The Soviet Championships" by Cafferty & Taimanov). From that point on, it becomes hard to determine how much of Karpov's success was due to his ability and how much to political support. > For that matter, I don't recall anyone arguing that Spassky actually > played well in the 72 match. It's an oddity that World Championship matches often show the players performing at less than their best. Something to do with the strain and pressure, it's said. > BTW, I am not suggesting that Chessmetrics is without flaws. (Have > posted > on them myself) However, for discussions of things like "all-time > greatness" > it has *far* fewer flaws than FIDE ratings. > > > > > > > > > > > > His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as t= hat > > > > > was, > > > > > the number of games involved wasn't that high. > > > > > =A0 Please tell us how many games you require before a "world > > > > championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other > > > > player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Check= ing > > > > FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fischer= , I > > > > see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. > > > > Exactly my point. Neither Fischer nor anyone else has an achievement > > > like that. > > > =A0 Eh? Fischer had no achievement like what Fischer did? I'm sorry, I > > have trouble understanding that. > > Fischer's performance was not "typical" Fischer. It was > extraordinary FOR HIM. Suggesting that it was representative > of his career is just plain wrong. I never suggested that it was representative of his career. I was (A) questioning your nonsensical (to be fair, probably hastily written) statement that even Fischer did not do what Fischer did, and (B) pointing out that no one else ever had a remotely comparable achievement in the Candidates cycle. > So the question becomes whether winning one tournament and > 4 matches, even by ridiculous margins, is enough to qualify > for all-time greatness? Well, if you are going to claim that Fischer is not among the all- time greats, you will be in a very small minority. > > > > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement= . I > > > > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his > > > > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." I certainly agr= ee > > > > with you that Kasparov accomplished more over his career, but I can= not > > > > share your low regard for what Fischer did.- Hide quoted text - > > > > It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. I am in awe of > > > that Candidates run as any. But it is not like winning impressively > > > year after year - against all comers. Surely you don't deny that > > > it's reasonable for a discussions of "greatness" to include longevity= ? > > > =A0 Again, my apologies if I have misinterpreted you. And I certainly > > agree with your last two sentences. However, Fischer did "win > > impressively year after year against all comers" for a pretty good > > span. In nine international tournaments 1965-70 he came 1st seven > > times, 2nd twice. The two 2nd-place finishes were only =BD-point behind > > the winner (Smyslov at Havana 1965 and Spassky at Santa Monica 1966). > > In the nine tournaments, he outdistanced the likes of Petrosian, > > Larsen, Portisch, Smyslov, Geller, Kholmov, Unzicker, Gligoric, > > Matulovic, Hort, Gheorghiu, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Panno, Najdorf, > > Reshevsky, H=FCbner, Taimanov, Uhlmann, Polugaevsky and other greats. > > All this before his Candidates/WCh run where he demolished everyone. > > =A0 It is a tragedy for chess that Fischer stopped playing when probabl= y > > a decade or more of comparable accomplishment lay before him. I quite > > agree that on the basis of longevity alone Kasparov, and perhaps > > Karpov, must rank above Fischer on the all-time great list. What I > > respecfully disagree with is that you seem to downgrade Fischer's > > achievement based on faulty arguments about Spassky's supposed > > weakness. > > My argument did not hinge on Spassky's absolute "weakness", though > I do think that Spassky's best chess was behind him in 1972. His > relative weakness to much stronger opponents post-1972 is the issue > at hand. As late as 1977 Spassky was still winning Candidate Matches. Had he beaten Korchnoi in the final match, he would have played Karpov for the title in 1978. As late as 1983 he was still winning top-rank tournaments, such as Linares 1983, ahead of (guess who?) Karpov, Andersson, Yusupov, Miles, Timman, Geller, Hort, Seirawan and Larsen. As late as 1984 he was still in the FIDE top 10. I would be delighted to be afflicted with that level of "relative weakness." I will readily concede that overall Karpov's record is greater than Spassky's, but I feel you are underrating Spassky based on insufficient data.   Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:37:19 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 11:13=A0am, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 6:53=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Sure, from about 1967-70, Fischer had results which made him the best > > player in the world. > > I disagree. =A0He wasn't playing the best in the world at that time. > For half of that time he wasn't playing at all. > > In the second half of the 60s Spassky beat, convincingly, Geller > (twice) Larsen, Keres, Tal, and Kortchnoi in matches. =A0He lost one > match to Petrosian, won the next. > > By 1970 he had won three category 15 tournaments (the highest rating > of the time). Fischer never won a category 15 tournament (he finished > second to Spassky in Santa Monica, 1966). > > In 67-68 Fischer won a strong but small tournament in Monaco, and won > a number of weaker events decisively (and also was winning the > interzonal when he withdrew). =A0 But this was nothing new, Fischer had > long since shown he could dominate a cat 10 or 12 event. =A0He didn't > play at all in 1969, except one league game in New York. > > There is no comparison between the kind of results Spassky was getting > and the kind that Fischer was getting. =A0Spassky was playing the best > in the world, Fischer was not. > > William Hyde Hmmm. Chessmetrics shows Spassky normally 3rd or 4th in the world during the period 1965-70. (Spassky is 1st for half a year.) Fischer is mostly, but not consistently, 1st. This could be a case of Chessmetrics weirdness, but my first inclination is that you are letting subjective factors (such and such events are "important", others aren't) get in the way of the cold hard data. In any case, it's tangential (actually supportive) to my original point - namely that Fischer's historical legacy is heavily weighted to his 72 conquest of the world championship.   Date: 09 Jan 2009 11:19:10 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 7:13=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 9:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 5:30=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > =A0 =A0And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'd re= fer > > > to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. > > > Exactly. A discussion of Fischer's "greatness" largely stems from his > > WC run. I don't deny there are some other highlights, which no doubt > > you'll list arguing against some position I haven't taken. > > =A0 My apologies if I have misinterpreted your position. I don't want to > seem overly argumentative here. I basically agree with you that > Kasparov's career record is more impressive than Fischer's. It just > seems to me that you underrate what Fischer did, and offer some > invalid arguments in support of that view, such as that "By 1972, when > he lost to Fischer, [Spassky] was probably already surpassed by > Karpov," and that "Spassky doesn't match up that well to others who've > been world champion." Neither fits the facts. Chessmetrics gives historical rankings for "x" year peaks, and you can change x. For x =3D 1, Fischer is right at the top and I can't argue with that. For anything bigger than 1, he's not at the top, and for 20-year peak, he's not even on the list. For a value like 3-years, Fischer comes in at number two (behind Kasparov) and Spassky comes at #26, well behind most world champions, and even behind several non-champions. So that supports my claim concerning Spassky's historical prowess. As far as Karpov being better than Spassky in 1972, I have less ammunition. Their chessmetrics ratings are nearly the same. But can any sane person really feel that the 72 Spassky was a more dangerous opponent than Karpov, knowing that Karpov achieved much higher heights than Spassky ever had, a few years later? For that matter, I don't recall anyone arguing that Spassky actually played well in the 72 match. BTW, I am not suggesting that Chessmetrics is without flaws. (Have posted on them myself) However, for discussions of things like "all-time greatness" it has *far* fewer flaws than FIDE ratings. > > > > > His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as tha= t > > > > was, > > > > the number of games involved wasn't that high. > > > > =A0 Please tell us how many games you require before a "world > > > championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other > > > player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Checkin= g > > > FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fischer, = I > > > see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. > > > Exactly my point. Neither Fischer nor anyone else has an achievement > > like that. > > =A0 Eh? Fischer had no achievement like what Fischer did? I'm sorry, I > have trouble understanding that. Fischer's performance was not "typical" Fischer. It was extraordinary FOR HIM. Suggesting that it was representative of his career is just plain wrong. So the question becomes whether winning one tournament and 4 matches, even by ridiculous margins, is enough to qualify for all-time greatness? > > > > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement. = I > > > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his > > > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." I certainly agree > > > with you that Kasparov accomplished more over his career, but I canno= t > > > share your low regard for what Fischer did.- Hide quoted text - > > > It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. I am in awe of > > that Candidates run as any. But it is not like winning impressively > > year after year - against all comers. Surely you don't deny that > > it's reasonable for a discussions of "greatness" to include longevity? > > =A0 Again, my apologies if I have misinterpreted you. And I certainly > agree with your last two sentences. However, Fischer did "win > impressively year after year against all comers" for a pretty good > span. In nine international tournaments 1965-70 he came 1st seven > times, 2nd twice. The two 2nd-place finishes were only =BD-point behind > the winner (Smyslov at Havana 1965 and Spassky at Santa Monica 1966). > In the nine tournaments, he outdistanced the likes of Petrosian, > Larsen, Portisch, Smyslov, Geller, Kholmov, Unzicker, Gligoric, > Matulovic, Hort, Gheorghiu, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Panno, Najdorf, > Reshevsky, H=FCbner, Taimanov, Uhlmann, Polugaevsky and other greats. > All this before his Candidates/WCh run where he demolished everyone. > =A0 It is a tragedy for chess that Fischer stopped playing when probably > a decade or more of comparable accomplishment lay before him. I quite > agree that on the basis of longevity alone Kasparov, and perhaps > Karpov, must rank above Fischer on the all-time great list. What I > respecfully disagree with is that you seem to downgrade Fischer's > achievement based on faulty arguments about Spassky's supposed > weakness. My argument did not hinge on Spassky's absolute "weakness", though I do think that Spassky's best chess was behind him in 1972. His relative weakness to much stronger opponents post-1972 is the issue at hand.   Date: 09 Jan 2009 11:13:22 From: William Hyde Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 6:53=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > Sure, from about 1967-70, Fischer had results which made him the best > player in the world. I disagree. He wasn't playing the best in the world at that time. For half of that time he wasn't playing at all. In the second half of the 60s Spassky beat, convincingly, Geller (twice) Larsen, Keres, Tal, and Kortchnoi in matches. He lost one match to Petrosian, won the next. By 1970 he had won three category 15 tournaments (the highest rating of the time). Fischer never won a category 15 tournament (he finished second to Spassky in Santa Monica, 1966). In 67-68 Fischer won a strong but small tournament in Monaco, and won a number of weaker events decisively (and also was winning the interzonal when he withdrew). But this was nothing new, Fischer had long since shown he could dominate a cat 10 or 12 event. He didn't play at all in 1969, except one league game in New York. There is no comparison between the kind of results Spassky was getting and the kind that Fischer was getting. Spassky was playing the best in the world, Fischer was not. William Hyde   Date: 09 Jan 2009 09:41:30 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 12:12=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 10:42=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =A0 Anyone at all knowledgeable about chess history > > =A0 ...would know that Mr. Steinitz himself dated > the beginning of his own reign as world champion. > Sheesh. This is Greg's backhanded way of admitting he was talking from between his glutei when he claimed that Steinitz "won 20 straight world championship matches." > =A0 I am reminded of the time when I discussed > the complaint of Mr. Petrosian regarding being > approached by a seedy-looking fellow who > apparently wanted to offer him a bribe to throw > his candidates match to Mr. Fischer; it seems > that Mr. Kingston was at a complete loss, yet > some tall stranger from out of town had zero > difficulty in locating a written source. Which source =97 "Petrosian's Legacy" (1990) =97 said absolutely nothing about a bribe. It's amazing that Greg keeps peddling this garbled misrepresentation, even though his mistake was pointed out to him at least a year ago. Actually it's not amazing; it's habitual with him.   Date: 09 Jan 2009 09:12:35 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 10:42=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > =A0 Anyone at all knowledgeable about chess history ...would know that Mr. Steinitz himself dated the beginning of his own reign as world champion. Sheesh. I am reminded of the time when I discussed the complaint of Mr. Petrosian regarding being approached by a seedy-looking fellow who apparently wanted to offer him a bribe to throw his candidates match to Mr. Fischer; it seems that Mr. Kingston was at a complete loss, yet some tall stranger from out of town had zero difficulty in locating a written source. It also reminds me of the fiasco which ensued after Mr. Kingston wrote a letter to Chess Life magazine endorsing some claptrap written by Mr. Evans, then later wrote in again to /reverse/ his position, only to later still write an article in which -- you guessed it -- Mr. Kingston flip- flopped yet again! All this flopping about is very un-human like... but quite appropriate for a fish out of water. Just do some reading at Mr. Winter's Web site, and the confusion will disappear. By the way, the final (one hopes) article on the Evans cheating accusation was much better than Mr. Kingston's usual swill; even so, the apparent attempt to divine the truth objectively fell to pieces at the end. No surprise there. -- help bot   Date: 09 Jan 2009 07:42:42 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 10:26=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 9:35=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > =A0 Take a gander at Mr. Steinitz-- a fellow > > > who played all comers and won twenty > > > straight world chapionship matches-- > > > YOWZA! =A0 That's nineteen more than BF. > > > =A0 "20 straight"? Where our Greg gets his stats continues to be an > > ongoing mystery. Perhaps the same source as Sam Sloan. > > =A0 Steinitz played only six official World Championship matches, > > winning four of them: vs. Zukertort in 1886, Chigorin in 1889, > > Gunsberg 1890-91, and Chigorin in 1892. He lost to Lasker in 1894 and > > 1896-97. > > =A0 Even if we take the more liberal interpretation of "World > > Championship," and date Steinitz's reign from his 1866 defeat of > > Anderssen, there's nothing close to any 20 title matches played, let > > alone won. Checking Pickard's "Games of Wilhelm Steinitz" (1995), we > > see that Steinitz played 25 matches 1866-1897, but many of these were > > short non-title bouts against lesser players such as Fraser (twice, > > once giving odds), Martinez (three times), Sellman, Golmayo (twice), > > Vasquez and Carvajal. The 25 also include a 2-game thematic cable > > match with Chigorin (which Steinitz lost), and an 1896 match with > > Schiffers, played when Steinitz was no longer champion. > > =A0 Even some with top players in this span were non-title matches, suc= h > > as a 2-game set with Blackburne (1870) and a six-game set with > > Mackenzie (1883) > > =A0 So even by the loosest interpretation, Steinitz never "won twenty > > straight world chapionship matches." > > =A0 What's this talk about "interpretations"? Anyone at all knowledgeable about chess history knows that there are two schools of thought about exactly when Steinitz became World Champion. The strict interpretation starts his reign at 1886, when he beat Zukertort. The more liberal interpretation starts it at 1866, when he beat Anderssen. The latter is more a "de facto" stance, the former more "de jure." I realize of course, Greg, that the stipulation "anyone at all knowledgeable about chess history" leaves you out. > > =A0 =A0Regardless of the choice here, the fact > remains that BF only won the title *once*, > while others -- including Mr. Steinitz -- did > it *repeatedly*. That's nice, Greg, but I'm addressing your claim that Steinitz "won twenty straight world chapionship matches." That is simply not true, not even close to the facts. You are clearly wrong. Hardly the first time.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 02:31:32 From: madams Subject: Re: Did Bobby Fischer Cause the Atlantic to Vanish?.. help bot wrote: > > Mr. Kingston, in a proud display of his intellectual > virtuosity, explains that a large, arid depression is, > so he tells us, called a "basin": Yeah! - he shoulda called it a davy-jones.. Oooer! - just think of all those ship-wrecks, all that treasure, all them whalebones.. ======================================================================================   Date: 09 Jan 2009 07:26:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 9:35=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Take a gander at Mr. Steinitz-- a fellow > > who played all comers and won twenty > > straight world chapionship matches-- > > YOWZA! =A0 That's nineteen more than BF. > > =A0 "20 straight"? Where our Greg gets his stats continues to be an > ongoing mystery. Perhaps the same source as Sam Sloan. > =A0 Steinitz played only six official World Championship matches, > winning four of them: vs. Zukertort in 1886, Chigorin in 1889, > Gunsberg 1890-91, and Chigorin in 1892. He lost to Lasker in 1894 and > 1896-97. > =A0 Even if we take the more liberal interpretation of "World > Championship," and date Steinitz's reign from his 1866 defeat of > Anderssen, there's nothing close to any 20 title matches played, let > alone won. Checking Pickard's "Games of Wilhelm Steinitz" (1995), we > see that Steinitz played 25 matches 1866-1897, but many of these were > short non-title bouts against lesser players such as Fraser (twice, > once giving odds), Martinez (three times), Sellman, Golmayo (twice), > Vasquez and Carvajal. The 25 also include a 2-game thematic cable > match with Chigorin (which Steinitz lost), and an 1896 match with > Schiffers, played when Steinitz was no longer champion. > =A0 Even some with top players in this span were non-title matches, such > as a 2-game set with Blackburne (1870) and a six-game set with > Mackenzie (1883) > =A0 So even by the loosest interpretation, Steinitz never "won twenty > straight world chapionship matches." What's this talk about "interpretations"? One second, Mr. Kingston talks as if he "knows" precisely how many Steinitz matches were world championships; the next, he talks about various and sundry "interpretations", along with not "knowing" the exact start of Mr. Steinitz' reign. Regardless of the choice here, the fact remains that BF only won the title *once*, while others -- including Mr. Steinitz -- did it *repeatedly*. By the same token, while Mr. Capablan- ca won his ttle without the loss of even a single game, Mr. Fischer lost and drew several games. These facts are never mentioned by those rabid Fischer fanatics in their rants regarding BF being somehow "superior" in every way to the other world champs. On top of this, there are those idiots who will argue that BF somehow stood head- and-shoulders above all his peers; this is nonsense, for all one need do is look at the record of Mr. Spassky-- not even a single loss to BF until after game one in 1972! In short, while BF stands out in many ways, he also falls short in many others-- not just longetivity. The truth is, a case /could/ be made for BF-- but Mr. Sloan's attempt was more like a comedy of errors. -- help bot   Date: 09 Jan 2009 07:13:19 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 9:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 8, 5:30=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > =A0 =A0And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'd refe= r > > to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. > > Exactly. A discussion of Fischer's "greatness" largely stems from his > WC run. I don't deny there are some other highlights, which no doubt > you'll list arguing against some position I haven't taken. My apologies if I have misinterpreted your position. I don't want to seem overly argumentative here. I basically agree with you that Kasparov's career record is more impressive than Fischer's. It just seems to me that you underrate what Fischer did, and offer some invalid arguments in support of that view, such as that "By 1972, when he lost to Fischer, [Spassky] was probably already surpassed by Karpov," and that "Spassky doesn't match up that well to others who've been world champion." Neither fits the facts. > > > His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as that > > > was, > > > the number of games involved wasn't that high. > > > =A0 Please tell us how many games you require before a "world > > championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other > > player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Checking > > FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fischer, I > > see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. > > Exactly my point. Neither Fischer nor anyone else has an achievement > like that. Eh? Fischer had no achievement like what Fischer did? I'm sorry, I have trouble understanding that. > > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement. I > > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his > > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." I certainly agree > > with you that Kasparov accomplished more over his career, but I cannot > > share your low regard for what Fischer did.- Hide quoted text - > > It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. I am in awe of > that Candidates run as any. But it is not like winning impressively > year after year - against all comers. Surely you don't deny that > it's reasonable for a discussions of "greatness" to include longevity? Again, my apologies if I have misinterpreted you. And I certainly agree with your last two sentences. However, Fischer did "win impressively year after year against all comers" for a pretty good span. In nine international tournaments 1965-70 he came 1st seven times, 2nd twice. The two 2nd-place finishes were only =BD-point behind the winner (Smyslov at Havana 1965 and Spassky at Santa Monica 1966). In the nine tournaments, he outdistanced the likes of Petrosian, Larsen, Portisch, Smyslov, Geller, Kholmov, Unzicker, Gligoric, Matulovic, Hort, Gheorghiu, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Panno, Najdorf, Reshevsky, H=FCbner, Taimanov, Uhlmann, Polugaevsky and other greats. All this before his Candidates/WCh run where he demolished everyone. It is a tragedy for chess that Fischer stopped playing when probably a decade or more of comparable accomplishment lay before him. I quite agree that on the basis of longevity alone Kasparov, and perhaps Karpov, must rank above Fischer on the all-time great list. What I respecfully disagree with is that you seem to downgrade Fischer's achievement based on faulty arguments about Spassky's supposed weakness.   Date: 10 Jan 2009 02:05:24 From: madams Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? jefk wrote: . > Nobody knows. > Anyway Rybka beats them all, > Iq zero btw, > :) ;)   Date: 09 Jan 2009 07:07:48 From: Rob Subject: Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player From 1970-1972? On Jan 8, 12:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 8, 1:23=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > > The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player > > Ever? > > > It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, > > including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The > > Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the > > greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only > > slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. > > Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied > > with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. > > > The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry > > Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? > > I note that Anand recently remarked that the Fischer of the 1970s > would get crushed by today's top players. > > As usual in these different period comparisons we have to assess if > the player could temperamentally adjust to current conditions - rather > notably Anand has just got himself a super-computer, but before this > time he really didn't seem to rely on chess computing. > > Therefore, though I am in some sympathy with Anand, I see what a mess > we all got into here where there was a discussion of Morphy > [incidentally, Fischer's own choice of the greatest player] and where > another GM, Nunn, was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player. > > > The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was > > only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world > > championship match games, their score was dead even. > > Yes - there is a difference in match play than modern-style all-play > all tournaments. In that scenario Kasparov was clearly superior. > > > Similarly, although Anand is now the undisputed World Champion, > > Topalov is rated a bit higher and teenager Magnus Carlsen is catching > > up fast. > > > By contract, Fischer was 100 points, or half a class, better than > > Spassky. By that standard, the distance between the best player in the > > world and the number two player in the world, Fischer was clearly the > > greatest player ever. > > Here you lose ground - my sense is that Morphy was far better than 100 > points over Staunton. The comparison you attempt is the degree of > dominance in any time period, and was Fischer more dominant than > anyone else. Other contenders in their times have to Capablanca and > Lasker. > > > Another factor is that nowadays the top players all use computerized > > databases with millions of games to prepare for their opponents and > > they train with computer chess programs such as Rybka. These programs > > come up with moves and ideas that no human had ever thought of before. > > It is said that the current world champion, Anand, plays like a > > computer because he trains extensively with a computer. > > > However, the question remains unanswered: If Bobby Fischer were alive > > today and playing at his peak, would he be able to defeat players like > > Kasparov and Anand? > > If he could train like Anand, I think he would have a chance - > although we would have to make him same age too. In terms of computer > usage you must also note where GMs say they are deceptive - not just > GMs, but mere masters armed with sufficient knowledge, such as the > recent MAMS II title. > > > The 1992 rematch with Spassky proved that the Fischer of 1992 was not > > the Fischer of 1972. Although Fischer stated that he =93played great > > chess=94 in the second match, that was only partially true. Fischer's > > best play came when he was trying to rescue himself from a bad or > > nearly losing position. In 1992, Fischer found himself in the same > > situation that he had been in the last games of the 1972 match, where > > he had several bad positions and at one point Shelby Lyman announced > > on his TV Show =93Fischer has lost the game=94. It turned out that Fisc= her > > did not lose. He found a resource that saved the draw. > > Somewhat lose analysis. You see, what are you really asking? The > Fischer who played the second match against Spassky was a joke upon > the first FIscher who went those 20 games against top players without > sharing a point! > > > > > > > The advent of computer databases and computer playing chess programs > > does not really answer the question. Having all these computers helps, > > but one still needs a man to actually play the game. Also, getting the > > opponent out of the book and into a situation the opponent could not > > have prepared for is not that difficult. > > > A situation that occurred in Iceland while Fischer was living there as > > a Fugitive from the George Bush Version of Justice occurred during a > > game played on an Icelandic Television Broadcast on September 12, > > 2006. The game went: > > > Thorfinsson, Bragi - Gunnarson, Arnar [C50] > > Icelandic TV, 09.12.2006 > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.d3 Be6 5.Bxe6 fxe6 6.c3 Qd7 7.0-0 Nf6 > > 8.b4 a6 9.a4 Be7 10.Na3 0-0 11.Nc4 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Na5 d5 14.Bg5 > > Bd6 15.Re1 h6 16.Bh4 Nxa5 17.bxa5 b4 18.Qb3 Qb5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.c4 > > dxc4 21.dxc4 Qc6 22.Nh4 Kh7 23.c5 Be7 24.Qxb4 Bxc5 25.Qb3 Bd4 26.Rac1 > > Qd7 27.Qa3 Qd6 28.Qf3 Rxa5 29.Qh5 Rg8 30.Qf7+? Rg7 31.Qxf6 Ra2? 32.Rf1 > > Re2 33.Qf3 Rd2 34.Qf6 Re2 35.h3? Rxe4 =A036.Rc6. Qxc6, =A037.Nf5 > > > Here, Black blundered and lost. As this game was played live on TV > > with grandmaster commentators, everybody was surprised when the phone > > rang. A mysterious voice was on the line, which the grandmasters > > recognized. It was Bobby Fischer. > > > Fischer had seen a fantastic combination, that all the grandmasters on > > the spot had missed. It went: > > > 37...Rxg2+! 38.Kh1 (White cannot retake because of 38.Kxg2 Rg4++ > > 39.Kh2 Qg2 mate) 38...Rh4!! 39.Qf7+ Rg7+ (discovered check!) 40.f3 > > Rxh3 mate. > > > The question is: Would any of today's top grandmasters, would > > Kasparov, Anand, Topalov or Carlsen, have seen this fantastic > > combination? If not, could they really have hoped to beat Fischer in > > his prime? > > I think you already have Anand's opinion that if the 1972 Fischer > showed up, he would get swallowed whole. Whether Fischer would have > the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is > a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in this > current era. > > Phil Innes > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This is a more defensible position: he was the best from 1970-1972. Some players do much better in head to head contests. Others do better in play all tournaments. Ratings are nothing more that a handicapping measurement on what the potential outcome may be in head to head play. Nothing more. and that is handicapping is based on past performance.   Date: 09 Jan 2009 06:35:21 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 7:35=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Take a gander at Mr. Steinitz-- a fellow > who played all comers and won twenty > straight world chapionship matches-- > YOWZA! =A0 That's nineteen more than BF. "20 straight"? Where our Greg gets his stats continues to be an ongoing mystery. Perhaps the same source as Sam Sloan. Steinitz played only six official World Championship matches, winning four of them: vs. Zukertort in 1886, Chigorin in 1889, Gunsberg 1890-91, and Chigorin in 1892. He lost to Lasker in 1894 and 1896-97. Even if we take the more liberal interpretation of "World Championship," and date Steinitz's reign from his 1866 defeat of Anderssen, there's nothing close to any 20 title matches played, let alone won. Checking Pickard's "Games of Wilhelm Steinitz" (1995), we see that Steinitz played 25 matches 1866-1897, but many of these were short non-title bouts against lesser players such as Fraser (twice, once giving odds), Martinez (three times), Sellman, Golmayo (twice), Vasquez and Carvajal. The 25 also include a 2-game thematic cable match with Chigorin (which Steinitz lost), and an 1896 match with Schiffers, played when Steinitz was no longer champion. Even some with top players in this span were non-title matches, such as a 2-game set with Blackburne (1870) and a six-game set with Mackenzie (1883) So even by the loosest interpretation, Steinitz never "won twenty straight world chapionship matches."   Date: 09 Jan 2009 06:23:42 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > Fischer never set foot on the mountain again. True, he played Spassky > > once more - but quite evidently a Spassky not in the top tier of > > players. > > > Dr Elo's analysis or rather projection's need to be taken with this > > caveat - the historical ratings are not actual measurements. > > =A0 Chess ratings are not "measurements"; they are > numerical calculations, based on results. Something is measured from results of chess games and we call these ratings, is perhaps a more direct statement. > > For Taylor Kingston to continue to take up cudgels on this matter means > > that he must also tackle GM Dr. Nunn, who used Fritz to evaluate > > Morphy not as a 2600 player [Elo], but as a 2300 player. > > =A0 Actually, Mr. Kingston refered to a few /selected/ > head-to-head records, not overall results or ratings; > that is where he attempted to pull a fast one. How odd to be so selective, when Nunn offered more examples - but from a previous encounter, not enough. But I think we should let Mr. Kingston off the hook since in truth there isn't enough, either volume analysis or quality measurement of great players by computer [even Albert Alberts who has pushed that envelop much further than Nunn, or any combination of all other analysts, would admit same - he keeps finding flaws in the computer's analysis.] What should not pass scrutiny is the conflation of actual measurements with projected ones. Actual measurements can be a combination of games played as analysed by computer plus actual ratings achieved. Beyond that we land on more contentious ground. Dr. Elo, after all, did not have massive computer data at his disposal, and actually evolved a pioneering system the result of which was to provide just one datum - a rating number. Even so, there are varieties of ways of deploying Elo's idea - a contrast is US and UK measurement, eg, where UK ratings select a pool of games which are more recent, rather than the US system which pays tribute to what we may have scored some years ago - even 5 years ago - hence the 'currentness' of current ratings is calculated from a different base in UK and US. At least these are actual ratings - no suppositions on how anyone would perform if... > > Therefore we got 2 flaws in evaluating Fischer - and the first one is > > to forget that actual people play chess and from an internal > > motivation - and whether they will like what it takes to be as > > dominant now, as they were in their own era, is a very open question > > indeed. Regardless of chess skill, it is evident that Fischer would > > not be a top player these days, since I rather feel that he didn't > > want to lose after becoming W CH, more than wanting to win - his > > motivation for being at the top had vanished. > > =A0 By talking this way you are eradicating the > magical transport of a player /at his peak/ to > another chessic era. =A0 =A0This works with any > old player, not just BF. That's quite right. Its also a problem in projections outside of chess on things which are enumerated. Which is to say, things which are reduced to number. The key word to note is that 'reduced' since only the parts which can be enumerated are included, and you can't tell from the resulting number if it is based on 10% or 90% of known factors about the subject or condition. In terms of what chess actually is, which is a /performance/ art, the psychological condition of the player is the paramount factor - no matter what went before. I think this is especially true in match chess, where its one-on-one over a series of games. Elo ratings seem a very uncertain indicator of what happens in those encounters, since the entire basis of Elo is that it is a social measure based on the pool of all players. Since W Ch competitions [used to be, anyway] match-chess, then its the players with the best past 12 months of match play who tend to succeed. Therefore we got 2 elements here: How Elo ratings can be applied retrospectively to players of other times, and indeed, if we can determine 'absolute-Elo' from them via some 'Fritz' device; and We got the entirely different scenario of match-play to which obviously Elo can't be well applied. I note that that 20 games winning streak by Fischer was all at match-play, and completely refuted an Elo statistic as predicted result. > > Secondly, the proposal has no objective standard, or benchmark at all, > > unless we assess actual games of Fischer using 'Fritz'. > > =A0 =A0I hope you have some serious hardware, or > you may well find that Fritz is not up to the > task of evaluating such games correctly; he > of course is superior at tactics, but sometimes > these guys do long-range strategy, keeping > tactical skirmishes in the background, unseen. This is something of the work of Dr. Alberts and his MAMS study. > =A0 Often times people get in a big hurry to see > results, and so the engine is not allowed very > much time on each position, because there > are so many of them. Yes. Fair enough. Alberts, BTW is looking for researchers to collaborate with him. I tried perhaps the best US source using fantastic computing possibities - Dr. Regan of Buffalo. He regretted that he was currently too loaded with mainstream educational obligations to review MAMS 2, though he had looked at MAMS1 and its reviews - perhaps another time, he asked? Interestingly his own computer analysis of W Ch games is not well known, nor quite complete, but I think will be worth the candle once he publishes it. > > Thirdly, you cannot respectable argue projections of ratings with > > actual measurements of ratings, without at last the 'intellectual > > honesty' to admit that one of them is a projection a-la-Elo. > > =A0 =A0It seems quite possible to forget about any > human-administered "adjustments", and just > type in all the known results of all the known > players, and let the computer churn out a > list of raw ratings. =A0 The important thing is to > refrain from tinkering with these numbers, to > suit one's whims; I think the guy at chess- > metrics may have wanted GK to come out on > top, thus he inadvertently dragged AK up near > the top because he wasn't smart enough to > do it some other way. =A0 :>D Ay. Which is why the 'scientist' or compiler /is/ important to consider. But I agree with you most generally - in fact I think I have /never/ seen a list of raw-ratings, neither as compiled Elo lists, NOR by computer evaluation of games, such as an expansion on Dr. Nunn's study. > > Fourthly - there is the evident romance of claiming someone best ever > > from other than chess reasons - ie, nationality, not rationality. > > =A0 =A0This is a major issue here in rgc, because so > many idiots here are from just one country (the > USA). =A0 In the latest issue of Chess Lies, the > cover went to a Russian emigre... after years > of giving the cover to far lesser players (as Mr. > Sloan has mentioned repeatedly). =A0 Funny thing > is, I didn't recognize him because he has > always had a beard, but for the cover photo, it > was suddenly gone. Photoshop? You can put a beard on a pig with that! But its true, national heroes [villains too, the 'charming rascals' as Jung mentioned in 4 archetypes] somewhat skew the picture. > > Fifthly - Fischer's was a great achievement - and /maybe/ that run up > > to, and the W Ch games itself, the best ever achieved by any player - > > certainly Fischer is the #1 contender for that honor. But that is / > > not/ to say that Fischer would perform well today, or even that he > > could do it twice, which unfortunately puts him at the bottom of > > another list of the people least likely to perform well at chess, post > > Iceland - and in that specific sense Fischer was the weakest of all W > > CHs. > > =A0 In general, not only is there a humongus > national bias regarding Mr. Fischer, but in > addition these discussions (and even the > thread title itself) reflect a lack of objectivity > in terms of /time/. =A0 =A0It rarely happens that > some oldtimer is obsessed over quite the > same way as the most-recent fave; thus > we have a discussion of only BF, with no > attempt to compare his "greatness" to the > other contenders from long ago. > > =A0 Take a gander at Mr. Steinitz-- a fellow > who played all comers and won twenty > straight world chapionship matches-- > YOWZA! =A0 That's nineteen more than BF. And yet Fischer was great. Its a matter of deciding on some standard, or collection of standards, which we education people often refer to as a rubric, which might resolve one thing or another. While I might admire Steinitz, eg, unless we Elo-project onto Steinitz some massive improvement, despite all known psychological behavior to do with overcoming early-learning and influences] then Fischer would mash Steinitz into a pulp, no? And that is the sense of Anand's recent comment, that an unimproved Fischer wouldn't make the first tier of players these days. > =A0 And what about the guy who seemed to > "encapsulate" the ratings-curves of all > others within and below his own-- Mr. > Lasker? =A0 Obviously, beating the guy > (twice) who had twenty-Oed everybody > else did not harm his performance-ratings > any. > > =A0 Third, what about that guy who won his > world title match without losing even a > single game-- Capablanca? The perfect point that refutes Kingston Elo-retro-projection [KERP] is that Capablanca famously said himself about Alekhine's new 'method' [rigorous study of the other player's game] that, 'if that's chess, you can keep it.' Evidently Capablanca was psychologically not capable of being Elo-improved. > =A0 The rabid > Fischer fanatics /never mention/ such > feats when relating how "superior" their > fave purportedly is; Mr. Fischer is not > even in the same league in this category. And yet we need not all disagree with each other because we each recommend a factor in the overall rubric by which we make an assessment. > =A0 The list goes on, but you get the idea. I hope others do as well, that disagreeable thing, peace, might break out and we may all have to admit that we live in a relative universe with all things connected to all other things, at least in potential, and actually behave as though that was our understanding of Nature, and we as commentators are also part of nature, as are these players we project upon not-robots though by mere numbers we tend to make them that, but they also have 'many valencies'. Phil Innes > > =A0 -- help bot   Date: 09 Jan 2009 04:35:30 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 6:54=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 It seems to me that any discussion of "who was > > the greatest" cannot rationally begin by thrusting > > one particular name under our noses, as the > > nitwitted Mr. Sloan has done. > The real contention is proposed by Elo - whose 'ratings' were not > actually measurements, but 'if' statements - projections from the past > upon the future, if the player was still active today, and given the > same opportunity, etc., then says Elo they would be such and such. > > But as we see with Fischer, and to make better use of Taylor > Kingston's analogy than he did himself - after solo-ing Everest With Ed Edmondson as his unmentionable (because it spoils the fairy tale) aid... > Fischer never set foot on the mountain again. True, he played Spassky > once more - but quite evidently a Spassky not in the top tier of > players. > > Dr Elo's analysis or rather projection's need to be taken with this > caveat - the historical ratings are not actual measurements. Chess ratings are not "measurements"; they are numerical calculations, based on results. > For Taylor Kingston to continue to take up cudgels on this matter means > that he must also tackle GM Dr. Nunn, who used Fritz to evaluate > Morphy not as a 2600 player [Elo], but as a 2300 player. Actually, Mr. Kingston refered to a few /selected/ head-to-head records, not overall results or ratings; that is where he attempted to pull a fast one. > Therefore we got 2 flaws in evaluating Fischer - and the first one is > to forget that actual people play chess and from an internal > motivation - and whether they will like what it takes to be as > dominant now, as they were in their own era, is a very open question > indeed. Regardless of chess skill, it is evident that Fischer would > not be a top player these days, since I rather feel that he didn't > want to lose after becoming W CH, more than wanting to win - his > motivation for being at the top had vanished. By talking this way you are eradicating the magical transport of a player /at his peak/ to another chessic era. This works with any old player, not just BF. > Secondly, the proposal has no objective standard, or benchmark at all, > unless we assess actual games of Fischer using 'Fritz'. I hope you have some serious hardware, or you may well find that Fritz is not up to the task of evaluating such games correctly; he of course is superior at tactics, but sometimes these guys do long-range strategy, keeping tactical skirmishes in the background, unseen. Often times people get in a big hurry to see results, and so the engine is not allowed very much time on each position, because there are so many of them. > Thirdly, you cannot respectable argue projections of ratings with > actual measurements of ratings, without at last the 'intellectual > honesty' to admit that one of them is a projection a-la-Elo. It seems quite possible to forget about any human-administered "adjustments", and just type in all the known results of all the known players, and let the computer churn out a list of raw ratings. The important thing is to refrain from tinkering with these numbers, to suit one's whims; I think the guy at chess- metrics may have wanted GK to come out on top, thus he inadvertently dragged AK up near the top because he wasn't smart enough to do it some other way. : >D > Fourthly - there is the evident romance of claiming someone best ever > from other than chess reasons - ie, nationality, not rationality. This is a major issue here in rgc, because so many idiots here are from just one country (the USA). In the latest issue of Chess Lies, the cover went to a Russian emigre... after years of giving the cover to far lesser players (as Mr. Sloan has mentioned repeatedly). Funny thing is, I didn't recognize him because he has always had a beard, but for the cover photo, it was suddenly gone. > Fifthly - Fischer's was a great achievement - and /maybe/ that run up > to, and the W Ch games itself, the best ever achieved by any player - > certainly Fischer is the #1 contender for that honor. But that is / > not/ to say that Fischer would perform well today, or even that he > could do it twice, which unfortunately puts him at the bottom of > another list of the people least likely to perform well at chess, post > Iceland - and in that specific sense Fischer was the weakest of all W > CHs. In general, not only is there a humongus national bias regarding Mr. Fischer, but in addition these discussions (and even the thread title itself) reflect a lack of objectivity in terms of /time/. It rarely happens that some oldtimer is obsessed over quite the same way as the most-recent fave; thus we have a discussion of only BF, with no attempt to compare his "greatness" to the other contenders from long ago. Take a gander at Mr. Steinitz-- a fellow who played all comers and won twenty straight world chapionship matches-- YOWZA! That's nineteen more than BF. And what about the guy who seemed to "encapsulate" the ratings-curves of all others within and below his own-- Mr. Lasker? Obviously, beating the guy (twice) who had twenty-Oed everybody else did not harm his performance-ratings any. Third, what about that guy who won his world title match without losing even a single game-- Capablanca? The rabid Fischer fanatics /never mention/ such feats when relating how "superior" their fave purportedly is; Mr. Fischer is not even in the same league in this category. The list goes on, but you get the idea. -- help bot   Date: 09 Jan 2009 03:54:46 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > =A0 Here the intellectually-dishonest Mr. Kingston > arbitrarily decides to exclude pre-FIDE champions, > such as Mr. Steinitz, who swept about twenty title > matches in-a-row as compared to Mr. Fischer's > paltry one-in-a-row. > > > > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement. = I > > > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his > > > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." > > =A0 =A0Always quick with some random analogy, Mr. > Kingston seem to be unaware that this is not > physically possible; a man's arms would need > to flap at a rate which would sever them in a > milisecond. > > > It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. > > =A0 Actually, it's typical; all the sophists here do it > when caught out on a weak limb. > > --- > > =A0 It seems to me that any discussion of "who was > the greatest" cannot rationally begin by thrusting > one particular name under our noses, as the > nitwitted Mr. Sloan has done. The real contention is proposed by Elo - whose 'ratings' were not actually measurements, but 'if' statements - projections from the past upon the future, if the player was still active today, and given the same opportunity, etc., then says Elo they would be such and such. But as we see with Fischer, and to make better use of Taylor Kingston's analogy than he did himself - after solo-ing Everest, Fischer never set foot on the mountain again. True, he played Spassky once more - but quite evidently a Spassky not in the top tier of players. Dr Elo's analysis or rather projection's need to be taken with this caveat - the historical ratings are not actual measurements. For Taylor Kingston to continue to take up cudgels on this matter means that he must also tackle GM Dr. Nunn, who used Fritz to evaluate Morphy not as a 2600 player [Elo], but as a 2300 player. Therefore we got 2 flaws in evaluating Fischer - and the first one is to forget that actual people play chess and from an internal motivation - and whether they will like what it takes to be as dominant now, as they were in their own era, is a very open question indeed. Regardless of chess skill, it is evident that Fischer would not be a top player these days, since I rather feel that he didn't want to lose after becoming W CH, more than wanting to win - his motivation for being at the top had vanished. Secondly, the proposal has no objective standard, or benchmark at all, unless we assess actual games of Fischer using 'Fritz'. Thirdly, you cannot respectable argue projections of ratings with actual measurements of ratings, without at last the 'intellectual honesty' to admit that one of them is a projection a-la-Elo. Fourthly - there is the evident romance of claiming someone best ever from other than chess reasons - ie, nationality, not rationality. Fifthly - Fischer's was a great achievement - and /maybe/ that run up to, and the W Ch games itself, the best ever achieved by any player - certainly Fischer is the #1 contender for that honor. But that is / not/ to say that Fischer would perform well today, or even that he could do it twice, which unfortunately puts him at the bottom of another list of the people least likely to perform well at chess, post Iceland - and in that specific sense Fischer was the weakest of all W CHs. Phil Innes > =A0 Instead, it ought to begin by carefully defining > the term "greatness", and only then comparing > each and every candidate in as objective a > manner as possible. =A0 (Unfortunately, this > approach leaves many rgc hacks out of the loop; > they would not be able to participate at all, by > their very nature.) > > =A0 -- help bot   Date: 09 Jan 2009 00:23:46 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 2:51=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:12:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >But who needs speculation when there is a record of anything? Fischer > >her picked for the second match when he could have played Karpov - a > >player considerably stronger than Spassky then. SO what did Fischer > >prove other than he was not up to modern chess... > >If Fischer was really the best, he didn't behave that way - he chose a > >safe opponent in the semi-retired Spassky, and avoided contest with > >Karpov in his own time. That is what actually happened, and no > >projection on his skill. Fischer had simply no ability to take on > >current challenges at a certain age. > > When Fischer played the second match with Spassky, he proved that > after twenty years of no official play, he could beat someone who had > been moderately active during that period time by about the same > margin as he beat him the first time. =A0 Most people understand that Fischer-Spassky II was about cashing in on celebrity and collecting a fat paycheck. Interestingly, the Chessmetrics website lists the strongest matches in history. Not surprisingly, the top 5 are the Kasparov-Karpov duels. According tot that site, the strongest chess match in history was Kasparov-Karpov V in 1990, just two years before FS II. The real world championship match was a class higher than the Fischer exhibition. (FYI, FS I comes in at #39) > > Your comments, that this proved "he was not up to modern chess" above > are highly speculative, with no basis in fact -- ironic from someone > who claimed no need for speculation when there was a record. > > Imputing fear on the part of Fischer may or may not be correct -- it's > certainly speculative. =A0Over his lifetime, he made many decisions most > of us would consider self-destructive and bizarre. =A0He turned down > millions of dollars in endorsements when he could have pocketed the > money with no risk or effort. =A0He pullout out of an Interzonal when he > had a virtual =A0lock =A0on first place. Fear? Proof that he wasn't up to > the competition in the remaining games? =A0Nonsense. > > Over the years, He turned down many other potentially lucrative offers > to play opponents of his *own* generation -- Korchnoi, I believe, and > Mecking, as well as some lesser GMs.. =A0Do you think he was afraid of > losing to Mecking? The point was that his legacy would not have been enhanced by playing Mecking etc. In fact, his 70-72 results were so exceptional that Fischer no doubt knew he could never come close to duplicating them. The only way for Fischer to enhance his legacy was to try to prevail for a long time. Fischer probably had enough self awareness to know that he was not cut out for that kind of challenge. So, the decision to retire in 72 was really a rational one, given a concern with his place in history. > > His choice of Spassky for a second match may have been to reaffirm his > own claim to the title during the intervening years by granting his > opponent a rematch. =A0Who can claim to understand Fischer's reasoning? > He rarely compromised on anything. > > At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from > Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some > level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest > opponent without some warm-up events. This implies that the match was part of a comeback. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that it was anything but a quick payday - possibly Fischer also enjoyed enhancing what he saw as his "rebel" credentials by playing the match in an outlaw state in violation of international and US law.     Date: 31 Jan 2009 08:24:18 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Sloan as Co-author? Riiiight. (was: Was Bobby Fischer the On Jan 31, 10:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:11=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:46:45 -0800 (PST), samsloan > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >This book has been reprinted now with 100 new pages added, including > > >the moves with diagrams of all 25 games between Fischer and Spassky. > > >Order it now at barnesandnoble.com > > >http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=3D0923= 8... > > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891412 > > > Sam, you've added yourself as co-author to all these books by dead > > people (Fischer, Godel, Elo, Watson, et.al.) > > > My prediction: =A0You'll be the first guy lynched after the > > Resurrection. > > =A0 And apparently all he's done is to write a foreword! Heck, by that > logic, I should be listed as a co-author for the algebraic edition of > Lasker's Manual of Chess (http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=3D840). > Besides translating the notation to algebraic, I wrote a preface, a > section on how to read algebraic, a series of biographical highlights, > and a 24-page appendix of analytical notes, plus added many diagrams > and photos. But my name is not on the cover, nor on any web-page > selling the book, nor should it be, nor did I want it to be. It's > Lasker's book. > =A0 Frankly, adding "foreword by Sam Sloan" to a good book is like a > gourmet restaurant adding "served with stale potato chips" to their > filet mignon or lobster newburgh. At least with the Lasker book we > have a foreword by Mark Dvoretsky. My name is not listed on the cover of any of the books I am reprinting (with a few exceptions). In this case I have added 100 pages of new material so my name goes on the copyright page as author of the foreword so that I have a copyright on the new material I have added. It is Amazon who lists me that way. I have no control over the way that Amazon chooses to list books on their website. In a number of instances Amazon has made a mistake on their website with regard to my books and I have never been able to correct them. Examples are listing Charles Goren as author of "Invitation to Bridge" when Harkness wrote the book, or putting the wrong cover on "Outline of Contract Bridge" or a mis-aligned cover on "Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present" by Elo. I have a lot of complaints about Amazon, so if you have a complaint, write to them, not to me. Sam Sloan     Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:50:12 From: Subject: Sloan as Co-author? Riiiight. (was: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest On Jan 31, 10:11=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:46:45 -0800 (PST), samsloan > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >This book has been reprinted now with 100 new pages added, including > >the moves with diagrams of all 25 games between Fischer and Spassky. > >Order it now at barnesandnoble.com > >http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=3D09238.= .. > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891412 > > Sam, you've added yourself as co-author to all these books by dead > people (Fischer, Godel, Elo, Watson, et.al.) > > My prediction: =A0You'll be the first guy lynched after the > Resurrection. And apparently all he's done is to write a foreword! Heck, by that logic, I should be listed as a co-author for the algebraic edition of Lasker's Manual of Chess (http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=3D840). Besides translating the notation to algebraic, I wrote a preface, a section on how to read algebraic, a series of biographical highlights, and a 24-page appendix of analytical notes, plus added many diagrams and photos. But my name is not on the cover, nor on any web-page selling the book, nor should it be, nor did I want it to be. It's Lasker's book. Frankly, adding "foreword by Sam Sloan" to a good book is like a gourmet restaurant adding "served with stale potato chips" to their filet mignon or lobster newburgh. At least with the Lasker book we have a foreword by Mark Dvoretsky.     Date: 10 Jan 2009 02:01:37 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 11:57=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > I think you're referring to Biyiasas . =A0An understandable error. =A0All > Canadian GMs look alike. This particular incident is about to become a question of utmost political importance to the USCF, for a reason that nobody will guess and I will keep secret for the time being. Sam Sloan     Date: 09 Jan 2009 22:32:15 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 11:57=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >> In response to the question "How would Fischer do against Kasparov". > >> Canadian GM, Duncan Suttles > > =A0This is of course the chap who supposedly > >lost twenty straight blitz games to BF. =A0 > I think you're referring to Biyiasas . =A0An understandable error. =A0All > Canadian GMs look alike. You are correct. One of the insane props of the luny position that BF, and not GK, was the "real" world champ circa 1992, was that BF had allegedly beaten the tar out of PB at blitz chess. Now, if you consider the fact that our local TD was himself a paltry 2100-2250 player, who had traveled around a bit and honestly believed that he too could have beaten PB -- the weakest GM (at blitz) he had ever seen, as he put it -- this is no great feat; nevermind that just as with the preposterous claim regarding BF's IQ, there was no substantive evidence, merely hearsay. Another "goodie" tossed about by the rabit Fischerites was the idea that BF had somehow managed to spot several errors by GK and AK in their games with one another. Apparently, it was assumed that this meant something important, though even Fritz 5.32 easily does the same and in fact, Larry Evans has for many years been annoyed by Class B players writing in with similar ideas-- Class B players now armed with Chessmaster, perhaps, but not always. Another thing is that apparently, Mr. Fischer was still analyzing the games of his successors, while of course they were not analyzing his /non-existant/ games, looking for errors in the same vein; this makes for a very one-sided "contest", if it can be called that. It goes without saying that the loons never caught on to such "details". -- help bot     Date: 09 Jan 2009 00:58:38 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:23:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >> At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from >> Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some >> level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest >> opponent without some warm-up events. >This implies that the match was part of a comeback. I have never >seen any evidence to suggest that it was anything but a quick >payday - possibly Fischer also enjoyed enhancing what he >saw as his "rebel" credentials by playing the match in an >outlaw state in violation of international and US law. We really don't know how he envisioned it. He'd passed up other opportunities for a quick payday. Possibly, the match convinced him he was too rusty. Possibly, he envisioned follow-on matches and it just never happened. My point, contra Phil, was, *any* statements about Fischer's reasoning, goals, or state of mind are speculative.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:05:25 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? Mr. Kingston, in a proud display of his intellectual virtuosity, explains that a large, arid depression is, so he tells us, called a "basin": > > =A0 =A0And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'd refe= r > > to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. In reality, that would be called a low-lying desert. > > =A0 Please tell us how many games you require before a "world > > championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other > > player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Checking > > FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fischer, I > > see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. Here the intellectually-dishonest Mr. Kingston arbitrarily decides to exclude pre-FIDE champions, such as Mr. Steinitz, who swept about twenty title matches in-a-row as compared to Mr. Fischer's paltry one-in-a-row. > > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement. I > > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his > > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." Always quick with some random analogy, Mr. Kingston seem to be unaware that this is not physically possible; a man's arms would need to flap at a rate which would sever them in a milisecond. > It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. Actually, it's typical; all the sophists here do it when caught out on a weak limb. --- It seems to me that any discussion of "who was the greatest" cannot rationally begin by thrusting one particular name under our noses, as the nitwitted Mr. Sloan has done. Instead, it ought to begin by carefully defining the term "greatness", and only then comparing each and every candidate in as objective a manner as possible. (Unfortunately, this approach leaves many rgc hacks out of the loop; they would not be able to participate at all, by their very nature.) -- help bot   Date: 08 Jan 2009 18:39:49 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 5:30=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 6:53=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2:31=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he > > > > lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. > > > > =A0 Hmmm. Spassky won the 1973 Soviet Championship, ahead of Karpov, = not > > > to mention Korchnoi, Kuzmin, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Geller, > > > Grigorian, Keres, Savon, Taimanov, Tal and other greats. That doesn't > > > quite jibe with being "already surpassed." If you mean 1974, then I > > > would agree with you, their Candidates Match being the proof. > > > > > =A0See chessmetrics. > > > > =A0 I prefer to look at actual results, when they are available. > > > Chessmetrics is based on results. > > =A0 Yes and no. Mr. Sonas makes various debatable assumptions, and has > produced some ratings that make little or no sense. If I recall > correctly, for example, Chessmetrics shows Alekhine's rating rising in > the 1940s. I'd say it needs more work. Just as Elo ratings would need "more work" if one were discussing all time greatness. > > > The point is that Spassky doesn't > > match > > up that well to others who've been world champion. > > =A0 Really? Thru 1994, he had lifetime plus scores against Smyslov, > Petrosian, and Tal, an even score against Kasparov, and minus scores > against Botvinnik, Fischer, and Karpov. In other words, he held his > own against more than half the world champions he's played. > > > In 1972, he was on > > the decline > > and just an ordinary "top rank GM" > > =A0 Being a regular here, I'm used to hyperbole, but this is a bit much > even by rgc standards. > > > > > The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that th= ere > > > > just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Certainl= y, > > > > his run up to the 1972 title was an extraordinary chess performance= . > > > > Whether > > > > that few games qualifies someone for "all time greatness" is anothe= r > > > > matter. > > > > =A0 You think it's valid to ignore all the rest of Fischer's career? = He > > > already had the world's highest Elo rating by 1970. > > > Sure, from about 1967-70, Fischer had results which made him the best > > player in the world. But had > > Fischer retired before the interzonal, nobody would seriously consider > > him "best ever". > > =A0 =A0And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'd refer > to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. Exactly. A discussion of Fischer's "greatness" largely stems from his WC run. I don't deny there are some other highlights, which no doubt you'll list arguing against some position I haven't taken. > > > His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as that > > was, > > the number of games involved wasn't that high. > > =A0 Please tell us how many games you require before a "world > championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other > player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Checking > FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fischer, I > see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. Exactly my point. Neither Fischer nor anyone else has an achievement like that. > =A0 =A0You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement. I > suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his > arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." I certainly agree > with you that Kasparov accomplished more over his career, but I cannot > share your low regard for what Fischer did.- Hide quoted text - It's odd that you have so misread what I wrote. I am in awe of that Candidates run as any. But it is not like winning impressively year after year - against all comers. Surely you don't deny that it's reasonable for a discussions of "greatness" to include longevity? By choice, Fischer chose not to face some of his contemporaries - including some of chess' all-time greatest. On what basis am I not free to include that in judging greatness? > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:56:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 8:30=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: Take a gander at the following SWEEPING claim: > > > > Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he > > > > lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. Now have a look at what Mr. Kingston does: > > > =A0 Hmmm. Spassky won the 1973 Soviet Championship, ahead of Karpov, = not > > > to mention Korchnoi, Kuzmin, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Geller, > > > Grigorian, Keres, Savon, Taimanov, Tal and other greats. That doesn't > > > quite jibe with being "already surpassed." A single event -- from the wrong year in fact -- is presented in an effort to refute the sweeping claim regarding Mr. Spassky's strength, by the year /1972/. Now then, wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just look up Mr. Spassky's ratings, and compare them to the actual ratings of the other contenders, instead of this side-show? If Mr. Kingston rejects the ratings at the chessmetrics Web site, it looks like that leaves the official FIDE ratings-- so where's the problem? > =A0 Yes and no. Mr. Sonas makes various debatable assumptions, and has > produced some ratings that make little or no sense. If I recall > correctly, for example, Chessmetrics shows Alekhine's rating rising in > the 1940s. I'd say it needs more work. Any problems with Mr. Spassky's ratings on that site? > > The point is that Spassky doesn't > > match up that well to others who've been world champion. > =A0 Really? Thru 1994, he had lifetime plus scores Once again, Mr. Kingston carefully avoids the issue of ratings, in favor of cherry-picking only the results he wants to see. > > > > The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that th= ere > > > > just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Now the other chap goes brain-dead. The *obvious* problem with the question is the fact that it is phrased so as to point to a particular individual, thus leading us to the "desired answer". A more intelligent approach would leave out any mention of specific players, and ask "who was/is the greatest chess player of all time?"; and it would of course define the key term, greatness, precisely. -- help bot   Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:30:12 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 6:53=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:31=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he > > > lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. > > > =A0 Hmmm. Spassky won the 1973 Soviet Championship, ahead of Karpov, no= t > > to mention Korchnoi, Kuzmin, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Geller, > > Grigorian, Keres, Savon, Taimanov, Tal and other greats. That doesn't > > quite jibe with being "already surpassed." If you mean 1974, then I > > would agree with you, their Candidates Match being the proof. > > > > =A0See chessmetrics. > > > =A0 I prefer to look at actual results, when they are available. > > Chessmetrics is based on results. Yes and no. Mr. Sonas makes various debatable assumptions, and has produced some ratings that make little or no sense. If I recall correctly, for example, Chessmetrics shows Alekhine's rating rising in the 1940s. I'd say it needs more work. > The point is that Spassky doesn't > match > up that well to others who've been world champion. Really? Thru 1994, he had lifetime plus scores against Smyslov, Petrosian, and Tal, an even score against Kasparov, and minus scores against Botvinnik, Fischer, and Karpov. In other words, he held his own against more than half the world champions he's played. > In 1972, he was on > the decline > and just an ordinary "top rank GM" Being a regular here, I'm used to hyperbole, but this is a bit much even by rgc standards. > > > The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that ther= e > > > just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Certainly, > > > his run up to the 1972 title was an extraordinary chess performance. > > > Whether > > > that few games qualifies someone for "all time greatness" is another > > > matter. > > > =A0 You think it's valid to ignore all the rest of Fischer's career? He > > already had the world's highest Elo rating by 1970. > > Sure, from about 1967-70, Fischer had results which made him the best > player in the world. But had > Fischer retired before the interzonal, nobody would seriously consider > him "best ever". And if there were no water between Europe and America, we'd refer to the Atlantic as a basin instead of an ocean. > His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as that > was, > the number of games involved wasn't that high. Please tell us how many games you require before a "world championship run" becomes impressive in your eyes. And what other player's world championship run you consider more impressive. Checking FIDE Interzonal and Candidate results both before and after Fischer, I see nothing comparable to what Fischer did. You are amazingly casually dismissive of a great achievement. I suppose if a man flew to the peak of Mount Everest by flapping his arms, you would belittle it as "just one mountain." I certainly agree with you that Kasparov accomplished more over his career, but I cannot share your low regard for what Fischer did.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 16:43:25 From: jefk Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? lots of humbug; Fischer had a high regard for pawns, so does Rybka; Rybka 4 will be better btw than Rybka 3; and Nakamura.. and computers still become faster; in the end the will just play drawn games but thats another subject; IQ if Fischer? well there a different scales to measure that, Wechsler Cattell, etc., but worse than that, there's an age correction which sometimes for young ted kids can give exaggerated figures; have a look at supposedly the highest IQ alive currenty, a certain Marylin Vos Savant (IQ 220 ?) She just did a test at age 8, or so, scored 110, multiplied with two, and bingo, Iq 220. A similar thing probably happened with the Fischer test; Kasparov (IQ measured at 135) isnt more stupid than Fischer, he just did another test, and at another age. Besides that, his mental capabilities, memory, general education, maturity, etc, are higher than that of Fischer, even when Fisher did manage to beat Spassky; would he have beaten Karpov as well in 1972? Nobody knows. Anyway Rybka beats them all, Iq zero btw, :) jef   Date: 08 Jan 2009 16:06:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 6:09=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 4:18=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Look - I found things in GM games that players never played - but they > > have a time control, and I have days months years. > > Based on the little analysis from you I've seen, there's probably a > good reason GMs don't play the moves you find. Pro bono. -- help bot   Date: 08 Jan 2009 16:05:07 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 5:51=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:12:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >But who needs speculation when there is a record of anything? Fischer > >her picked for the second match when he could have played Karpov - a > >player considerably stronger than Spassky then. SO what did Fischer > >prove other than he was not up to modern chess... > >If Fischer was really the best, he didn't behave that way - he chose a > >safe opponent in the semi-retired Spassky, and avoided contest with > >Karpov in his own time. That is what actually happened, and no > >projection on his skill. Fischer had simply no ability to take on > >current challenges at a certain age. > > When Fischer played the second match with Spassky, he proved that > after twenty years of no official play, he could beat someone who had > been moderately active during that period time by about the same > margin as he beat him the first time. =A0 > > Your comments, that this proved "he was not up to modern chess" above > are highly speculative, with no basis in fact -- ironic from someone > who claimed no need for speculation when there was a record. > > Imputing fear on the part of Fischer may or may not be correct -- it's > certainly speculative. =A0Over his lifetime, he made many decisions most > of us would consider self-destructive and bizarre. =A0He turned down > millions of dollars in endorsements when he could have pocketed the > money with no risk or effort. =A0He pullout out of an Interzonal when he > had a virtual =A0lock =A0on first place. Fear? Proof that he wasn't up to > the competition in the remaining games? =A0Nonsense. > > Over the years, He turned down many other potentially lucrative offers > to play opponents of his *own* generation -- Korchnoi, I believe, and > Mecking, as well as some lesser GMs.. =A0Do you think he was afraid of > losing to Mecking? > > His choice of Spassky for a second match may have been to reaffirm his > own claim to the title during the intervening years by granting his > opponent a rematch. =A0Who can claim to understand Fischer's reasoning? > He rarely compromised on anything. > > At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from > Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some > level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest > opponent without some warm-up events. I have to say, I'm really disappointed in Mr. Murray here; ordinarily, his commentaries are some of the most acute, most level- headed of any here. But this time, he just dropped the ball; there are too many errors to bother refuting each of them; instead, I will just settle for making a note in my book that... "Mr. Murray gets very irrational when discussing Mr. Fischer". -- help bot   Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:53:58 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 2:31=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he > > lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. > > =A0 Hmmm. Spassky won the 1973 Soviet Championship, ahead of Karpov, not > to mention Korchnoi, Kuzmin, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Geller, > Grigorian, Keres, Savon, Taimanov, Tal and other greats. That doesn't > quite jibe with being "already surpassed." If you mean 1974, then I > would agree with you, their Candidates Match being the proof. > > > =A0See chessmetrics. > > =A0 I prefer to look at actual results, when they are available. > Chessmetrics is based on results. The point is that Spassky doesn't match up that well to others who've been world champion. In 1972, he was on the decline and just an ordinary "top rank GM" > > The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that there > > just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Certainly, > > his run up to the 1972 title was an extraordinary chess performance. > > Whether > > that few games qualifies someone for "all time greatness" is another > > matter. > > =A0 You think it's valid to ignore all the rest of Fischer's career? He > already had the world's highest Elo rating by 1970. Sure, from about 1967-70, Fischer had results which made him the best player in the world. But had Fischer retired before the interzonal, nobody would seriously consider him "best ever". His legacy comes from his World championship run. As amazing as that was, the number of games involved wasn't that high. > > > I think the Fischer question is best answered by Fischer's own > > behavior. In 1975 > > he refused to play Karpov. > > In contrast, Kasparov had the guts to prove over the board that he was > > "slightly better than > > Karpov". That merits the "best ever" title. > > =A0 Agree with you 100% there.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:45:05 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 6:13=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 5:04=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > =A0 Well, heck, we can go onto your tangent if you like, Rev. Did > > Fischer have any interests besides chess, or later, anti-Semitism? I > > don't recall ever reading that he cared much for any subject in > > school. Supposedly he had a very high IQ, but he never applied it to > > anything other than chess. > > What is the basis for this "very high IQ" claim? I've seen the > statement appear in Brady's biography, and then copied by other > writers. The main (perhaps only) source is Brady. I don't know if the claim is valid, hence my use of the word "supposedly." The subject has come up in Winter's column several times recently, e.g. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter53.html which cites Brady's foreword to Burger's "The Chess of Bobby Fischer": "In previous writings I have cited Fischer=92s IQ as in the range of 180, a very high genius. My source of information is impeccable: a highly regarded political scientist who coincidentally happened to be working in the grade adviser=92s office at Erasmus Hall =96 Bobby Fischer=92s high school in Brooklyn =96 at the time Fischer was a student there. He had the opportunity to study Fischer=92s personal records and there is no reason to believe his figure is inaccurate. Some critics have claimed that other teachers at Erasmus Hall at that time remember the figure to be much lower; but who the teachers are and what figures they remember have never been made clear." That is all Winter gives. Checking the book, I see that Brady goes on: "It is probably a reflection of the 'chess champion paradox' that the 180 figure is considered unrealistic. Fischer's apparent lack of intellectual attainments, in contrast to the champions of the past, would seem to make a high IQ unbelieveable. He is considered by some to be almost an idiot savant. Perhaps some of the following anecdotes will dispel the doubts of the unbelieving." Brady then tells several stories illustrating Fischer's astounding memory, mainly involving chess games, but one about a conversation in Icelandic which Fischer (who did not speak that language) was able to repeat verbatim. Whether this is evidence of a high IQ, I can't say. Certainly Fischer's intellectual attainments outside of chess are small compared to, say, those of Lasker, Euwe, Botvinnik and other better-rounded greats.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:42:44 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 6:28=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:13:14 -0800 (PST), The Historian > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Jan 8, 5:04=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > >What is the basis for this "very high IQ" claim? I've seen the > >statement appear in Brady's biography, and then copied by other > >writers. > > I think I remember reading it was based on a test given in his high > school. =A0So, I'd guess the test was somewhat superficial. Wasn't that the story in Brady? P.22 of the Dover reprint cites a person who "worked in the Grade Advisor's Office at Eramus Hall." According to this unnamed source, Fischer's IQ was in the 180s.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:13:14 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 5:04=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 4:28=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 12:26=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote= : > > > > > Whether Fischer would have > > > > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers= is > > > > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in= this > > > > >current era. > > > > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > > > > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capaci= ty > > > > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > > > > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more= * > > > > effective. > > > > =A0 I quite agree with Mr. Murray. Fischer's appetite for chess work = was > > > insatiable and voracious, and his speed and capacity for absorbing > > > information were phenomenal. For example I've read that he could > > > memorize large parts of MCO just by reading through it, without a > > > board. > > > =A0 There is every reason to think that had he been born in, say, 198= 3 > > > rather than 1943, and if this latter version of RJF was as interested > > > in chess as the old one, he would today be using every chess-related > > > electronic tool available, just as avidly and productively as he > > > utilized the chess literature of his time. Whether he'd be better tha= n > > > Anand, Topalov, Carlsen et al I can't say, but I would be very > > > reluctant to bet against him. > > > If Fischer got a second shot at life, hopefully he would find > > something more productive and rewarding to do with his life than to > > obsess over chess again. =A0Imagine a happy Fischer with a Nobel prize > > in biochemistry or some such... =A0 > > =A0 I agree that might be a better outcome. However, the OP's question > was not "How might Fischer have better spent his life?" > > > But, back to your what if amusement... > > =A0 Well, heck, we can go onto your tangent if you like, Rev. Did > Fischer have any interests besides chess, or later, anti-Semitism? I > don't recall ever reading that he cared much for any subject in > school. Supposedly he had a very high IQ, but he never applied it to > anything other than chess. What is the basis for this "very high IQ" claim? I've seen the statement appear in Brady's biography, and then copied by other writers. How might he have been diverted to > biochemistry or some such scientific pursuit?     Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:28:37 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:13:14 -0800 (PST), The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: >On Jan 8, 5:04�pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: >What is the basis for this "very high IQ" claim? I've seen the >statement appear in Brady's biography, and then copied by other >writers. I think I remember reading it was based on a test given in his high school. So, I'd guess the test was somewhat superficial.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:11:50 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? It's always tough to compare across decades. However, the play of Lasker in the 1930s and Ossip Bernstein (tied a match with Alekhine in the 1930s) so that some players can play rather well after a hiatus. I was told (by someone, but I don't remember who) at one of the computer tournaments, that the "consensus" of various grandmasters after the 1992 match with Spassky was that Fischer was clearly in the top ten and that with some study and practice, he "coulda been a contender."   Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:09:38 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 4:18=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > Look - I found things in GM games that players never played - but they > have a time control, and I have days months years. Based on the little analysis from you I've seen, there's probably a good reason GMs don't play the moves you find.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:31:26 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he > lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. Hmmm. Spassky won the 1973 Soviet Championship, ahead of Karpov, not to mention Korchnoi, Kuzmin, Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Geller, Grigorian, Keres, Savon, Taimanov, Tal and other greats. That doesn't quite jibe with being "already surpassed." If you mean 1974, then I would agree with you, their Candidates Match being the proof. > See chessmetrics. I prefer to look at actual results, when they are available. > The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that there > just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Certainly, > his run up to the 1972 title was an extraordinary chess performance. > Whether > that few games qualifies someone for "all time greatness" is another > matter. You think it's valid to ignore all the rest of Fischer's career? He already had the world's highest Elo rating by 1970. > I think the Fischer question is best answered by Fischer's own > behavior. In 1975 > he refused to play Karpov. > In contrast, Kasparov had the guts to prove over the board that he was > "slightly better than > Karpov". That merits the "best ever" title. Agree with you 100% there.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:06:41 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 8, 10:23=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > > The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player > > Ever? > > > It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, > > including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The > > Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the > > greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only > > slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. > > Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied > > with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. > > > The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry > > Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? > > > The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was > > only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world > > championship match games, their score was dead even. > > > Similarly, although Anand is now the undisputed World Champion, > > Topalov is rated a bit higher and teenager Magnus Carlsen is catching > > up fast. > > > By contract, Fischer was 100 points, or half a class, better than > > Spassky. By that standard, the distance between the best player in the > > world and the number two player in the world, Fischer was clearly the > > greatest player ever. > > Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he > lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. See > chessmetrics. > > The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that there > just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Certainly, > his run up to the 1972 title was an extraordinary chess performance. > Whether > that few games qualifies someone for "all time greatness" is another > matter. > > I think the Fischer question is best answered by Fischer's own > behavior. In 1975 > he refused to play Karpov. Fischer no doubt knew, correctly I think, > that even though he > might have won, he would not have crushed Karpov. He would have been, > at best, > slightly better than Karpov. While retaining the World championship > might be a worthy achievement to most, it was not enough for Fischer's > fragile psyche, > and in his mind would have diminished his reputation. > > In contrast, Kasparov had the guts to prove over the board that he was > "slightly better than > Karpov". That merits the "best ever" title. Yes, all this is about the size of it. Whatever else there is is speculation alone, and a speculation that Fischer himself declined to engage in actual performance. More words do not make Fischer equal or superior, in his own terms, pawns would have. Phil Innes   Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:04:01 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 4:28=A0pm, "Rev. J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 12:26=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > > > > Whether Fischer would have > > > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers i= s > > > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in t= his > > > >current era. > > > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > > > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity > > > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > > > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* > > > effective. > > > =A0 I quite agree with Mr. Murray. Fischer's appetite for chess work wa= s > > insatiable and voracious, and his speed and capacity for absorbing > > information were phenomenal. For example I've read that he could > > memorize large parts of MCO just by reading through it, without a > > board. > > =A0 There is every reason to think that had he been born in, say, 1983 > > rather than 1943, and if this latter version of RJF was as interested > > in chess as the old one, he would today be using every chess-related > > electronic tool available, just as avidly and productively as he > > utilized the chess literature of his time. Whether he'd be better than > > Anand, Topalov, Carlsen et al I can't say, but I would be very > > reluctant to bet against him. > > If Fischer got a second shot at life, hopefully he would find > something more productive and rewarding to do with his life than to > obsess over chess again. =A0Imagine a happy Fischer with a Nobel prize > in biochemistry or some such... =A0 I agree that might be a better outcome. However, the OP's question was not "How might Fischer have better spent his life?" > But, back to your what if amusement... Well, heck, we can go onto your tangent if you like, Rev. Did Fischer have any interests besides chess, or later, anti-Semitism? I don't recall ever reading that he cared much for any subject in school. Supposedly he had a very high IQ, but he never applied it to anything other than chess. How might he have been diverted to biochemistry or some such scientific pursuit?   Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:39:52 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 10:23=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player > Ever? > > It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, > including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The > Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the > greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only > slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. > Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied > with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. > > The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry > Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? > > The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was > only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world > championship match games, their score was dead even. > > Similarly, although Anand is now the undisputed World Champion, > Topalov is rated a bit higher and teenager Magnus Carlsen is catching > up fast. > > By contract, Fischer was 100 points, or half a class, better than > Spassky. By that standard, the distance between the best player in the > world and the number two player in the world, Fischer was clearly the > greatest player ever. Spassky was by no means an outstanding champion. By 1972, when he lost to Fischer, he was probably already surpassed by Karpov. See chessmetrics. The problem with the "Is Fischer the Greatest?" question is that there just isn't that much data upon which to draw a conclusion. Certainly, his run up to the 1972 title was an extraordinary chess performance. Whether that few games qualifies someone for "all time greatness" is another matter. I think the Fischer question is best answered by Fischer's own behavior. In 1975 he refused to play Karpov. Fischer no doubt knew, correctly I think, that even though he might have won, he would not have crushed Karpov. He would have been, at best, slightly better than Karpov. While retaining the World championship might be a worthy achievement to most, it was not enough for Fischer's fragile psyche, and in his mind would have diminished his reputation. In contrast, Kasparov had the guts to prove over the board that he was "slightly better than Karpov". That merits the "best ever" title.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:28:14 From: Rev. J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 12:26=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > > > Whether Fischer would have > > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is > > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in thi= s > > >current era. > > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity > > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* > > effective. > > =A0 I quite agree with Mr. Murray. Fischer's appetite for chess work was > insatiable and voracious, and his speed and capacity for absorbing > information were phenomenal. For example I've read that he could > memorize large parts of MCO just by reading through it, without a > board. > =A0 There is every reason to think that had he been born in, say, 1983 > rather than 1943, and if this latter version of RJF was as interested > in chess as the old one, he would today be using every chess-related > electronic tool available, just as avidly and productively as he > utilized the chess literature of his time. Whether he'd be better than > Anand, Topalov, Carlsen et al I can't say, but I would be very > reluctant to bet against him. If Fischer got a second shot at life, hopefully he would find something more productive and rewarding to do with his life than to obsess over chess again. Imagine a happy Fischer with a Nobel prize in biochemistry or some such... But, back to your what if amusement...   Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:18:16 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 3:36=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > All of you are just assuming that, in old age and near death, Fischer > did not use these things. > > However, my information is that Fischer did keep up with the latest > developments in chess. > > He certainly had studied all the Kasparov-Karpov games and found some > things that he showed to others, although it is doubtful that any of > it will ever be published. > > Sam Sloan I challenged Fischer on behave of Taimanov about their game 3. While 'your information' may or may not exist - for sure, Fischer had nothing to say to Taimanov. Look - I found things in GM games that players never played - but they have a time control, and I have days months years. If Fischer was so good he needed to prove it, not make excuses for ducking Karpov, and settling for the 2600 Spassky. That is no measure of if you are best. Its a measure that you can't play a 2700 opponent. All the rest of it is in Fischer's head- and as he said himself, he didn't believe in psychology, he believed in pawns. But he just couldn't do what he believed in even in his own time when he and Karpov had equal access to the same material. Phil Innes   Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:12:55 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 3:34=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 8, 3:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > > > > Whether Fischer would have > > > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers i= s > > > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in t= his > > > >current era. > > > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > > > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity > > > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > > > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* > > > effective. > > > Its always a matter of speculation. > > =A0 And I would say Mr. Murray's speculations are considerably more fact- > based than most people's here. But who needs speculation when there is a record of anything? Fischer her picked for the second match when he could have played Karpov - a player considerably stronger than Spassky then. SO what did Fischer prove other than he was not up to modern chess. This is the gigantic flaw in Elo's reckoning - his ratings assume that a player, given current conditions would perform - therefore Elo's own retrograde ratings are never measurements. We see the lie as pointed out by an objective source, and arbitrated by a GM. Nunn said Morphy was just 2300. Capablanca famously couldn't deal with 'modern chess analysis' as Alekhine played it. If Fischer was really the best, he didn't behave that way - he chose a safe opponent in the semi-retired Spassky, and avoided contest with Karpov in his own time. That is what actually happened, and no projection on his skill. Fischer had simply no ability to take on current challenges at a certain age. > > Possibly depends on the age of the > > player, Fischer became rather fixed as he grew older, indifferent to > > any objective opinion such as a computer may offer him. > > > Even so... I do not deride the argument that he could not, but as with > > Morphy, say that an unimproved Fischer according to Anand would stand > > a dog's chance. > > =A0 Perhaps, and if we put the Jesse Owens of 1936 in today's Olympics, > he'd probably come last in every race. So what? So Ficher would come last in a modern first tier tourny, is what. > Does that mean he was > not a great runner? No. > Of course not. So why speak of what is obvious? > But if you took a young clone of > Owens and let him train with today's methods, he would probably be a > record-setter. You say 'probably'. Fischer was afraid of losing to Karpov, and they both had the same opportunities to research wherever they may. Fischer chose a safge opponent. Hardly best ever player. Fischer was severely screwed up, and after his one gigantic leap to the top, could do no more. No speculations there. I agree with Anand from another perspective. Its difficult to talk of these things since people glamorize players - though offer nothing to substantiate that other than 'being sure' and so on. I should not take Anand's oinion so lightly, neither what Fischer actually did, which was to take a light opponent instead of Karpov. In the end Fischer chickened out. This is not a judgement on him, he already did plenty - but it is a plain honest and obvious fact to anyone with the slightest psychological nous. Phil Innes     Date: 10 Jan 2009 11:55:59 From: Marlon Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? I always thought that it would've made more sense for Fischer to have faced Karpov in '92 rather than Spassky. If it was really a 1975 defending for the world title. He beat Spassky in '72, and Karpov was the next challenger. What sense did it make to face Spassky again in '92 unless Spassky defeated Karpov in the '74 qualifing match? Just a quick opinion from someone who reads chess info every now and then, I'd say that Fischer was not afraid to face Karpov in '75, he was just way too obnoxious to be reasoned with that he left. But in 1992, I think he was afraid to face Karpov, so he went back to his comfort zone against Spassky.     Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:51:14 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:12:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >But who needs speculation when there is a record of anything? Fischer >her picked for the second match when he could have played Karpov - a >player considerably stronger than Spassky then. SO what did Fischer >prove other than he was not up to modern chess... >If Fischer was really the best, he didn't behave that way - he chose a >safe opponent in the semi-retired Spassky, and avoided contest with >Karpov in his own time. That is what actually happened, and no >projection on his skill. Fischer had simply no ability to take on >current challenges at a certain age. When Fischer played the second match with Spassky, he proved that after twenty years of no official play, he could beat someone who had been moderately active during that period time by about the same margin as he beat him the first time. Your comments, that this proved "he was not up to modern chess" above are highly speculative, with no basis in fact -- ironic from someone who claimed no need for speculation when there was a record. Imputing fear on the part of Fischer may or may not be correct -- it's certainly speculative. Over his lifetime, he made many decisions most of us would consider self-destructive and bizarre. He turned down millions of dollars in endorsements when he could have pocketed the money with no risk or effort. He pullout out of an Interzonal when he had a virtual lock on first place. Fear? Proof that he wasn't up to the competition in the remaining games? Nonsense. Over the years, He turned down many other potentially lucrative offers to play opponents of his *own* generation -- Korchnoi, I believe, and Mecking, as well as some lesser GMs.. Do you think he was afraid of losing to Mecking? His choice of Spassky for a second match may have been to reaffirm his own claim to the title during the intervening years by granting his opponent a rematch. Who can claim to understand Fischer's reasoning? He rarely compromised on anything. At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest opponent without some warm-up events.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:36:28 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? All of you are just assuming that, in old age and near death, Fischer did not use these things. However, my information is that Fischer did keep up with the latest developments in chess. He certainly had studied all the Kasparov-Karpov games and found some things that he showed to others, although it is doubtful that any of it will ever be published. Sam Sloan   Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:34:50 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 3:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > > > Whether Fischer would have > > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is > > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in thi= s > > >current era. > > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity > > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* > > effective. > > Its always a matter of speculation. And I would say Mr. Murray's speculations are considerably more fact- based than most people's here. > Possibly depends on the age of the > player, Fischer became rather fixed as he grew older, indifferent to > any objective opinion such as a computer may offer him. > > Even so... I do not deride the argument that he could not, but as with > Morphy, say that an unimproved Fischer according to Anand would stand > a dog's chance. Perhaps, and if we put the Jesse Owens of 1936 in today's Olympics, he'd probably come last in every race. So what? Does that mean he was not a great runner? Of course not. But if you took a young clone of Owens and let him train with today's methods, he would probably be a record-setter.     Date: 31 Jan 2009 05:46:45 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? This book has been reprinted now with 100 new pages added, including the moves with diagrams of all 25 games between Fischer and Spassky. Order it now at barnesandnoble.com http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=3D092389141= 2 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891412 Sam Sloan On Jan 9, 5:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:14:23 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >> >What we all find ourselves in here is projection, > >> Is this why Phil always accuses people who disagree with him of > >> "McCarthyism" ? > >Always? I seem to restrict that descriptor to such as Sloan's wanton > >'questions' - every one of which are actually accusations or > >insinuations. > >But speak on, vaguely aspersive one =A0;) > > OK, since you asked. =A0You're lying, Phil. =A0Your epithet of McCarthyis= m > is hardly restricted to Sloan, as a simple Google search will reveal. > You need to remember when you lie about Usenet posts, we will check. > > >[give us another analogy if you can - I like the Everest one, but > >friend Kennedy here already shot it down] > > Pray, tell me where I made an analogy to Everest. =A0Since one of Phil's > "techniques" is to make mountains out of molehills. perhaps he's > projecting again. > > >> >FischerSpassky II was a preparation for nothing, except a very > >> >hypotheticalFischerSpassky III > > Speculation again. =A0You have no way of knowing that. =A0All you know is > no further matches happened. =A0You have no insight into his state of > mind or his intentions. > > >> >As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21stFischer > >> >incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far > >> >more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera > >> >crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking his > >> >Elo, or more centrally, his ego! > > Can Phil state any concerns thatFischerexpressed about Elo? =A0I > remember a lot about match conditions and money. > > >> Phil engages in speculation, but speculation of a very poor quality. > >Would this be a general, an basically vague commentary? > > It's more in the nature of an evaluation. > > >> In this thread, Phil continually conflates two issues: =A0(1)Fischer's > >> ranking in the pantheon ofworldchampions and (2)Fischer'smindset > >> at various points in his career. =A0My posts in this thread have > >> addressed only the latter -- something that Phil (and evidently, the > >> Bot) seems not to have understood. > >True, since me, Kelp-not and the original poster were talking more > >liberally than your point. Do you require our apology? > > Weeping and lamentation will due nicely, thanks. =A0No need for a formal > apology. > > But even though I didn't address your opinions on the first of these > issues, I believe your opinions there to be just as questionable. =A0 > > In response to the question "How wouldFischerdo against Kasparov". > Canadian GM, Duncan Suttles stated shortly after the 1992 match, > "Well, I think right now it would be pretty close, but ifFischer > plays himself back into form, I thinkFischerwould beat him". =A0 > > >> Whatever afflictedFischer'smind, it caused him to do many things > >> over the course of his life that were obviously contrary to his own > >> self interest. > >'many', ok, go on... > > Does Phil dispute "many"? =A0What's the point of this snarky little > comment? =A0Does Phil believe he gets some sort of points for responding > at all? =A0 > > >> =A0He passed up millions of dollars in risk and > >> effort-free endorsements. =A0He alienated many friends and associates > >> who virtually worshiped the ground on walked on. =A0He dumped a fortun= e > >> donating to crock religious sect. =A0He lived as a street person for > >> many years. =A0He neglected his health. =A0Call this set of acts "Fisc= her > >> 1". > >This would be to continue your own point, wouldn't it? Let me just > >remember what that was... > > You should take notes, Phil. =A0You wouldn't contradict yourself so > often. =A0Oh, and be sure to note the authorship -- you'll be less > likely to start arguing with yourself again. > > > I never said 'orchestrated' > >whatever that means, but directly impunnedFischer'spsyche. He opted > >out, and his ego was at least as big as all other things put together > >- so he created the conditions by which he was unable to play. > > Phil hazards a guess as toFischer'spossible motivation. =A0It's one > possible speculation among many. > > > What does rationality have to do with behavior > > Yes, this *would* be a significant question for Phil Innes. =A0Hard to > answer for humanity in general. =A0For Warren Buffett, quite a bit. =A0Fo= r > Phil andFischer, maybe not so much.       Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:11:49 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:46:45 -0800 (PST), samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: >This book has been reprinted now with 100 new pages added, including >the moves with diagrams of all 25 games between Fischer and Spassky. >Order it now at barnesandnoble.com >http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=0923891412 >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891412 Sam, you've added yourself as co-author to all these books by dead people (Fischer, Godel, Elo, Watson, et.al.) My prediction: You'll be the first guy lynched after the Resurrection.         Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:46:01 From: Senica Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? Definition of greatness? Garry Kasparov     Date: 09 Jan 2009 20:50:27 From: Rob Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 10:43=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Is this why Phil always accuses people who disagree with him of > > >> "McCarthyism" ? > > >Always? I seem to restrict that descriptor to such as Sloan's wanton > > >'questions' - every one of which are actually accusations or > > >insinuations. > > >But speak on, vaguely aspersive one =A0;) > > OK, since you asked. =A0You're lying, Phil. =A0Your epithet of McCarthy= ism > > is hardly restricted to Sloan, as a simple Google search will reveal. > > You need to remember when you lie about Usenet posts, we will check. > > =A0 Unless our Dr. IMnes has morhed into some sort > of petty pedant [the "Always"], he is indeed lying > (again). =A0 =A0 In addition to *frequently* tossing out > references to his fave, Mr. McCarthy, the good doc- > tor is also quite fond of accusing folks who do not > agree with his every whim of being "vague" and of > being what PI is himself-- dismissive of others' > opinions (and reasoning). =A0 Except of course those > he has "selected" to serve as unquestionable > authority figures; Dr. Freud would be fascinated... . > > > Pray, tell me where I made an analogy to Everest. =A0Since one of Phil'= s > > "techniques" is to make mountains out of molehills. perhaps he's > > projecting again. > > =A0 Um, no. =A0 Dr, IMnes has simply forgotten that > it was he who crafted that particular analogy. > They say that in old age, the mind is one of the > first things to go (who "they" were and where it > went I cannot remember... it was so long ago). > > > >> >As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21st Fischer > > >> >incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far > > >> >more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera > > >> >crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking hi= s > > >> >Elo, or more centrally, his ego! > > =A0 An obvious false-dillemma. =A0 One can be both what > Mr. Fischer was, and a strong player. =A0 Look at GK-- > the world's top player for a decade, and at the same > time a very disturbed man. > > > >> In this thread, Phil continually conflates two issues: =A0(1) Fische= r's > > >> ranking in the pantheon of world champions and (2) Fischer's mindset > > >> at various points in his career. =A0My posts in this thread have > > >> addressed only the latter -- something that Phil (and evidently, the > > >> Bot) seems not to have understood. > > =A0 This was hardly related to my point. =A0 I simply > read the jibberish of Mr. Sloan and dismissed > it as not worth bothering to refute, point by > point. =A0 Then, when I later came across half- > witted commentary /by Mr. Murray/, I was > taken aback; ordinarily, Mr. Murray is one of > the most level-headed posters here in rgc, so > imagine my surprise when I read his nonsense, > in the same vein as a Sam Sloan, only not > quite /that/ idiotic. > > > Weeping and lamentation will due nicely, thanks. =A0No need for a forma= l > > apology. > > =A0 Is it not enough that I admitted to mis-spelling > Dr. Jeckyll, to leaving off one of the final Ls? > =A0 I am reminded of the prison warden in Cool > Hand Luke: "We will be fair; *HARD*, but fair". > > > In response to the question "How would Fischer do against Kasparov". > > Canadian GM, Duncan Suttles > > =A0 This is of course the chap who supposedly > lost twenty straight blitz games to BF. =A0 Every > time this "tidbit" comes up, a local TD tells a > story to the effect that DS was, in his vast > experience, the weakest grandmaster he had > ever seen, in blitz chess. =A0 Much like our Dr. > IMnes, we are informed that even this TD > believed he could stomp DS /at blitz/. =A0 (This > does not imply that DS was not a grandmaster > at regular old slow chess.) > > > >'many', ok, go on... > > Does Phil dispute "many"? =A0What's the point of this snarky little > > comment? =A0Does Phil believe he gets some sort of points for respondin= g > > at all? =A0 > =A0 =A0Snark points. =A0 I think PI may be trying to impress > Mr. Mitchell-- his only loyal follower. I doubt he writes anything for my approval. Heck, most of the time I am so dense that I cannot complete a run on sentence. lol The Mitch > > You should take notes, Phil. =A0You wouldn't contradict yourself so > > often. =A0Oh, and be sure to note the authorship -- you'll be less > > likely to start arguing with yourself again. > > =A0 =A0Dr. IMnes does not often "argue" with himself; > recall that it is his distinct habit to merely dismiss > the opinions of "others", out of hand, without any > consideration at all. =A0 Thus, one of the victims of > the good doctor's habit is himself; ironic, no? > > > > I never said 'orchestrated' > > >whatever that means, but directly impunned > > =A0 Ouch-- I bet that hurt! > > > > Fischer's psyche. He opted > > >out, and his ego was at least as big as all other things put together > > >- so he created the conditions by which he was unable to play. > > > Phil hazards a guess as to Fischer's possible motivation. =A0It's one > > possible speculation among many. > > =A0 True, but is there really anything wrong with > this idea? =A0 I think it fits the facts as we know > them, and handily explains -- with superb > consistency -- each of BF's many ducks and > weaves. > > =A0 Recall that when reporters simply enquired > as to whether or not BF was going to play AK > or GK, Mr. Fischer's response was the very > predictable "change the subject" and "quack, > quack, I duck the question". =A0 Why? =A0 Because > admitting that he refused to play them was to > admit fear of losing. > > =A0 A rational man might well have stated, from > the very beginning, that he was through with > chess and wanted to do something different > with his life-- not spend the rest of it studying > and playing a silly board game. =A0 =A0But this > would equate to a denial of his supposedly > vast self-worth, his very /identity/. > > =A0 "I'm Bobby Fischer. =A0 I am the world chess > champion. =A0 (I am therefore important. =A0I am > /somebody/.)" > > > > What does rationality have to do with behavior > > Yes, this *would* be a significant question for Phil Innes. =A0 > > =A0 =A0At long last, Mr. Murray reverts to his old, > sharp-witted self. =A0 (If only the organization > could /afford/ to pay MM to replace NB on > assignment to PI... .) > > =A0 -- help bot     Date: 09 Jan 2009 20:43:15 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Is this why Phil always accuses people who disagree with him of > >> "McCarthyism" ? > >Always? I seem to restrict that descriptor to such as Sloan's wanton > >'questions' - every one of which are actually accusations or > >insinuations. > >But speak on, vaguely aspersive one =A0;) > OK, since you asked. =A0You're lying, Phil. =A0Your epithet of McCarthyis= m > is hardly restricted to Sloan, as a simple Google search will reveal. > You need to remember when you lie about Usenet posts, we will check. Unless our Dr. IMnes has morhed into some sort of petty pedant [the "Always"], he is indeed lying (again). In addition to *frequently* tossing out references to his fave, Mr. McCarthy, the good doc- tor is also quite fond of accusing folks who do not agree with his every whim of being "vague" and of being what PI is himself-- dismissive of others' opinions (and reasoning). Except of course those he has "selected" to serve as unquestionable authority figures; Dr. Freud would be fascinated... . > Pray, tell me where I made an analogy to Everest. =A0Since one of Phil's > "techniques" is to make mountains out of molehills. perhaps he's > projecting again. Um, no. Dr, IMnes has simply forgotten that it was he who crafted that particular analogy. They say that in old age, the mind is one of the first things to go (who "they" were and where it went I cannot remember... it was so long ago). > >> >As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21st Fischer > >> >incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far > >> >more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera > >> >crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking his > >> >Elo, or more centrally, his ego! An obvious false-dillemma. One can be both what Mr. Fischer was, and a strong player. Look at GK-- the world's top player for a decade, and at the same time a very disturbed man. > >> In this thread, Phil continually conflates two issues: =A0(1) Fischer'= s > >> ranking in the pantheon of world champions and (2) Fischer's mindset > >> at various points in his career. =A0My posts in this thread have > >> addressed only the latter -- something that Phil (and evidently, the > >> Bot) seems not to have understood. This was hardly related to my point. I simply read the jibberish of Mr. Sloan and dismissed it as not worth bothering to refute, point by point. Then, when I later came across half- witted commentary /by Mr. Murray/, I was taken aback; ordinarily, Mr. Murray is one of the most level-headed posters here in rgc, so imagine my surprise when I read his nonsense, in the same vein as a Sam Sloan, only not quite /that/ idiotic. > Weeping and lamentation will due nicely, thanks. =A0No need for a formal > apology. Is it not enough that I admitted to mis-spelling Dr. Jeckyll, to leaving off one of the final Ls? I am reminded of the prison warden in Cool Hand Luke: "We will be fair; *HARD*, but fair". > In response to the question "How would Fischer do against Kasparov". > Canadian GM, Duncan Suttles This is of course the chap who supposedly lost twenty straight blitz games to BF. Every time this "tidbit" comes up, a local TD tells a story to the effect that DS was, in his vast experience, the weakest grandmaster he had ever seen, in blitz chess. Much like our Dr. IMnes, we are informed that even this TD believed he could stomp DS /at blitz/. (This does not imply that DS was not a grandmaster at regular old slow chess.) > >'many', ok, go on... > Does Phil dispute "many"? =A0What's the point of this snarky little > comment? =A0Does Phil believe he gets some sort of points for responding > at all? =A0 Snark points. I think PI may be trying to impress Mr. Mitchell-- his only loyal follower. > You should take notes, Phil. =A0You wouldn't contradict yourself so > often. =A0Oh, and be sure to note the authorship -- you'll be less > likely to start arguing with yourself again. Dr. IMnes does not often "argue" with himself; recall that it is his distinct habit to merely dismiss the opinions of "others", out of hand, without any consideration at all. Thus, one of the victims of the good doctor's habit is himself; ironic, no? > > I never said 'orchestrated' > >whatever that means, but directly impunned Ouch-- I bet that hurt! > > Fischer's psyche. He opted > >out, and his ego was at least as big as all other things put together > >- so he created the conditions by which he was unable to play. > > Phil hazards a guess as to Fischer's possible motivation. =A0It's one > possible speculation among many. True, but is there really anything wrong with this idea? I think it fits the facts as we know them, and handily explains -- with superb consistency -- each of BF's many ducks and weaves. Recall that when reporters simply enquired as to whether or not BF was going to play AK or GK, Mr. Fischer's response was the very predictable "change the subject" and "quack, quack, I duck the question". Why? Because admitting that he refused to play them was to admit fear of losing. A rational man might well have stated, from the very beginning, that he was through with chess and wanted to do something different with his life-- not spend the rest of it studying and playing a silly board game. But this would equate to a denial of his supposedly vast self-worth, his very /identity/. "I'm Bobby Fischer. I am the world chess champion. (I am therefore important. I am /somebody/.)" > > What does rationality have to do with behavior > Yes, this *would* be a significant question for Phil Innes. =A0 At long last, Mr. Murray reverts to his old, sharp-witted self. (If only the organization could /afford/ to pay MM to replace NB on assignment to PI... .) -- help bot       Date: 09 Jan 2009 20:57:40 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:43:15 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: >> In response to the question "How would Fischer do against Kasparov". >> Canadian GM, Duncan Suttles > This is of course the chap who supposedly >lost twenty straight blitz games to BF. I think you're referring to Biyiasas . An understandable error. All Canadian GMs look alike.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:26:44 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > > Whether Fischer would have > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in this > >current era. > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* > effective. I quite agree with Mr. Murray. Fischer's appetite for chess work was insatiable and voracious, and his speed and capacity for absorbing information were phenomenal. For example I've read that he could memorize large parts of MCO just by reading through it, without a board. There is every reason to think that had he been born in, say, 1983 rather than 1943, and if this latter version of RJF was as interested in chess as the old one, he would today be using every chess-related electronic tool available, just as avidly and productively as he utilized the chess literature of his time. Whether he'd be better than Anand, Topalov, Carlsen et al I can't say, but I would be very reluctant to bet against him.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:24:24 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 2:22=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > > Whether Fischer would have > >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is > >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not =A0have done well in this > >current era. > > Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in > order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity > for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and > computers? =A0Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* > effective. Its always a matter of speculation. Possibly depends on the age of the player, Fischer became rather fixed as he grew older, indifferent to any objective opinion such as a computer may offer him. Even so... I do not deride the argument that he could not, but as with Morphy, say that an unimproved Fischer according to Anand would stand a dog's chance. I think I wrote before on this general idea representing Petersburg GM opinion. Phil Innes     Date: 09 Jan 2009 11:14:23 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 1:11=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:24:29 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >THE ART OF PROJECTION > >What we all find ourselves in here is projection, > > Is this why Phil always accuses people who disagree with him of > "McCarthyism" ? Always? I seem to restrict that descriptor to such as Sloan's wanton 'questions' - every one of which are actually accusations or insinuations. But speak on, vaguely aspersive one ;) [give us another analogy if you can - I like the Everest one, but friend Kennedy here already shot it down] > >Fischer Spassky II was a preparation for nothing, except a very > >hypothetical Fischer Spassky III. Obviously, despite all the FIDE > >shenanigans, Fischer ducked the strongest player of the time, W CH > >Karpov. > >As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21st Fischer > >incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far > >more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera > >crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking his > >Elo, or more centrally, his ego! > >And we know His Great Excuse or self-diversiont was to do with > >creating the condition by which he fell out with everyone, including > >his own country collectively. > > Phil engages in speculation, but speculation of a very poor quality. Would this be a general, an basically vague commentary? > In this thread, Phil continually conflates two issues: =A0(1) Fischer's > ranking in the pantheon of world champions and (2) Fischer's mindset > at various points in his career. =A0My posts in this thread have > addressed only the latter -- something that Phil (and evidently, the > Bot) seems not to have understood. True, since me, Kelp-not and the original poster were talking more liberally than your point. Do you require our apology? > Whatever afflicted Fischer's mind, it caused him to do many things > over the course of his life that were obviously contrary to his own > self interest. 'many', ok, go on... > =A0He passed up millions of dollars in risk and > effort-free endorsements. =A0He alienated many friends and associates > who virtually worshiped the ground on walked on. =A0He dumped a fortune > donating to crock religious sect. =A0He lived as a street person for > many years. =A0He neglected his health. =A0Call this set of acts "Fischer > 1". This would be to continue your own point, wouldn't it? Let me just remember what that was... Its either (1) Fischer's ranking in the pantheon of world champions and (2) Fischer's mindset at various points in his career. And by such review I see you refer to your own #2. > He also failed to defend his World Championship against Karpov. But wouldn't that revert to what the rest of us are talking about, ie, your #1? Of all the potential pantheonists, Fischer ducked out. > =A0And > in his 1992 comeback, Come on! In his safe 'B' movie. Hardly the big stuff any more. > he chose an opponent long past his prime. =A0He > needlessly made remarks in 2001 that put him on the radar screen of a > vindictive U.S. administration. =A0Call this set of acts "Fischer 2". Yes sir! > Of all the counter-productive actions in Fischer's life, Phil imputes > a twisted rationality to those in "Fischer 2", claiming they were > orchestrated to provide an excuse to avoid playing top opposition. =A0 A paraphrase, but a fair one! Though I never said 'orchestrated' whatever that means, but directly impunned Fischer's psyche. He opted out, and his ego was at least as big as all other things put together - so he created the conditions by which he was unable to play. If that is 'orchestrated', then so be it, but I think that word is far too conscious, and Fischer was, to use a psychological term, already nuts. > My point: Yes indeed, your point - after all, it is your own post, and why not make one? > why assume these "Fischer 2" acts were any more rational > than the others? The others? And 'rational'? Sorry... Is this a point like one of those joke pencils, which is actually a black rubber pencil? > =A0It's pure speculation. What is? > =A0It's like primitive man, Cool! an analogy! > looking for angry gods to explain the thunder. Very cool! A handsome image [borrowed?] and only betrayed by being completely incomprehensibly presented. What is all this about 'rationality' [whose?] and speculation [by others?] as an explanation for Fischer's behavior? What does rationality have to do with behavior in either (a) all people's behaviors, and (b) the already ranting on unresolved paradoxes in the mind of RJ Fischer? Phil Innes > >Hardly the best W Ch ever. Only the demonstrably best W Ch of his own > >era, and evidently Fischer had just that one shot in him. Those things > >are not speculations - those things actually happened. > > >Phil Innes       Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:30:07 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:14:23 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >> >What we all find ourselves in here is projection, >> Is this why Phil always accuses people who disagree with him of >> "McCarthyism" ? >Always? I seem to restrict that descriptor to such as Sloan's wanton >'questions' - every one of which are actually accusations or >insinuations. >But speak on, vaguely aspersive one ;) OK, since you asked. You're lying, Phil. Your epithet of McCarthyism is hardly restricted to Sloan, as a simple Google search will reveal. You need to remember when you lie about Usenet posts, we will check. >[give us another analogy if you can - I like the Everest one, but >friend Kennedy here already shot it down] Pray, tell me where I made an analogy to Everest. Since one of Phil's "techniques" is to make mountains out of molehills. perhaps he's projecting again. >> >Fischer Spassky II was a preparation for nothing, except a very >> >hypothetical Fischer Spassky III Speculation again. You have no way of knowing that. All you know is no further matches happened. You have no insight into his state of mind or his intentions. >> >As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21st Fischer >> >incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far >> >more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera >> >crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking his >> >Elo, or more centrally, his ego! Can Phil state any concerns that Fischer expressed about Elo? I remember a lot about match conditions and money. >> Phil engages in speculation, but speculation of a very poor quality. >Would this be a general, an basically vague commentary? It's more in the nature of an evaluation. >> In this thread, Phil continually conflates two issues: �(1) Fischer's >> ranking in the pantheon of world champions and (2) Fischer's mindset >> at various points in his career. �My posts in this thread have >> addressed only the latter -- something that Phil (and evidently, the >> Bot) seems not to have understood. >True, since me, Kelp-not and the original poster were talking more >liberally than your point. Do you require our apology? Weeping and lamentation will due nicely, thanks. No need for a formal apology. But even though I didn't address your opinions on the first of these issues, I believe your opinions there to be just as questionable. In response to the question "How would Fischer do against Kasparov". Canadian GM, Duncan Suttles stated shortly after the 1992 match, "Well, I think right now it would be pretty close, but if Fischer plays himself back into form, I think Fischer would beat him". >> Whatever afflicted Fischer's mind, it caused him to do many things >> over the course of his life that were obviously contrary to his own >> self interest. >'many', ok, go on... Does Phil dispute "many"? What's the point of this snarky little comment? Does Phil believe he gets some sort of points for responding at all? >> �He passed up millions of dollars in risk and >> effort-free endorsements. �He alienated many friends and associates >> who virtually worshiped the ground on walked on. �He dumped a fortune >> donating to crock religious sect. �He lived as a street person for >> many years. �He neglected his health. �Call this set of acts "Fischer >> 1". >This would be to continue your own point, wouldn't it? Let me just >remember what that was... You should take notes, Phil. You wouldn't contradict yourself so often. Oh, and be sure to note the authorship -- you'll be less likely to start arguing with yourself again. > I never said 'orchestrated' >whatever that means, but directly impunned Fischer's psyche. He opted >out, and his ego was at least as big as all other things put together >- so he created the conditions by which he was unable to play. Phil hazards a guess as to Fischer's possible motivation. It's one possible speculation among many. > What does rationality have to do with behavior Yes, this *would* be a significant question for Phil Innes. Hard to answer for humanity in general. For Warren Buffett, quite a bit. For Phil and Fischer, maybe not so much.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 11:35:41 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? Reposting to correct a typographical error with GK's career record vs. AK: On Jan 8, 1:23 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player > Ever? > > It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, > including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The > Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the > greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only > slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. > Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied > with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. No, Elo put Alekhine's 5-year peak at 2690, not 2680. And it's not at all clear that Elo's historical ratings directly measure "greatness," whatever that may be. Some historians consider both Lasker and Alekhine greater players than Capablanca, despite Capa having a higher historical Elo. Currently Ivanchuk has a slightly higher rating than Kramnik. Is he therefore "greater" than Kramnik, who has held the world title, while Ivanchuk has not? > The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry > Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? > > The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was > only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world > championship match games, their score was dead even. No, the total score was +21 -19 =3D94 in Kasparov's favor, The breakdown: 1984-5: +3 -5 =3D30 1985: +5 -3 =3D16 1986: +5 -4 =3D16 1987: +4 -4 =3D16 1990: +4 -3 =3D17 If we add in tournament results, Kasparov's edge increases. I don't have stats for their full careers, but through 2004 CB Megabase indicates a +31 -23 =3D125 edge for GK.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 11:32:49 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 1:23=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player > Ever? > > It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, > including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The > Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the > greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only > slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. > Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied > with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. No, Elo put Alekhine's 5-year peak at 2690, not 2680. And it's not at all clear that Elo's historical ratings directly measure "greatness," whatever that may be. Some historians consider both Lasker and Alekhine greater players than Capablanca, despite Capa having a higher historical Elo. Currently Ivanchuk has a slightly higher rating than Kramnik. Is he therefore "greater" than Kramnik, who has held the world title, while Ivanchuk has not? > The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry > Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? > > The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was > only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world > championship match games, their score was dead even. No, the total score was +21 -19 =3D94 in Kasparov's favor, The breakdown: 1984-5: +3 -5 =3D30 1985: +5 -3 =3D16 1986: +5 -4 =3D16 1987: +4 -4 =3D16 1990: +4 -3 =3D17 If add in tournament results, Kasparov's edge increases. I don't have stats for their full careers, but through 2004 CB Megabase indicates a +21 -23 =3D125 edge for GK.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 10:54:34 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 8, 1:23=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > > The question often asked is: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player > Ever? > > It is clear that Fischer was better than any player who proceeded him, > including Capablanca who, according to Professor Elo in his book =93The > Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present=94 ISBN 0923891277, was the > greatest player prior to Fischer. However, Capablanca was only > slightly better overall than his contemporaries, Lasker and Alekhine. > Elo rated Capablanca at 2725 followed by Lasker and Botvinnik tied > with 2720 and then Alekhine at 2680. > > The question now is: Was Fischer better than his successors, Garry > Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Anand and Topalov? I note that Anand recently remarked that the Fischer of the 1970s would get crushed by today's top players. As usual in these different period comparisons we have to assess if the player could temperamentally adjust to current conditions - rather notably Anand has just got himself a super-computer, but before this time he really didn't seem to rely on chess computing. Therefore, though I am in some sympathy with Anand, I see what a mess we all got into here where there was a discussion of Morphy [incidentally, Fischer's own choice of the greatest player] and where another GM, Nunn, was seen to say that Morphy was a 2300 player. > The answer usually given is that there in no comparison. Kasparov was > only slightly better than Karpov. In fact, over their world > championship match games, their score was dead even. Yes - there is a difference in match play than modern-style all-play all tournaments. In that scenario Kasparov was clearly superior. > Similarly, although Anand is now the undisputed World Champion, > Topalov is rated a bit higher and teenager Magnus Carlsen is catching > up fast. > > By contract, Fischer was 100 points, or half a class, better than > Spassky. By that standard, the distance between the best player in the > world and the number two player in the world, Fischer was clearly the > greatest player ever. Here you lose ground - my sense is that Morphy was far better than 100 points over Staunton. The comparison you attempt is the degree of dominance in any time period, and was Fischer more dominant than anyone else. Other contenders in their times have to Capablanca and Lasker. > Another factor is that nowadays the top players all use computerized > databases with millions of games to prepare for their opponents and > they train with computer chess programs such as Rybka. These programs > come up with moves and ideas that no human had ever thought of before. > It is said that the current world champion, Anand, plays like a > computer because he trains extensively with a computer. > > However, the question remains unanswered: If Bobby Fischer were alive > today and playing at his peak, would he be able to defeat players like > Kasparov and Anand? If he could train like Anand, I think he would have a chance - although we would have to make him same age too. In terms of computer usage you must also note where GMs say they are deceptive - not just GMs, but mere masters armed with sufficient knowledge, such as the recent MAMS II title. > The 1992 rematch with Spassky proved that the Fischer of 1992 was not > the Fischer of 1972. Although Fischer stated that he =93played great > chess=94 in the second match, that was only partially true. Fischer's > best play came when he was trying to rescue himself from a bad or > nearly losing position. In 1992, Fischer found himself in the same > situation that he had been in the last games of the 1972 match, where > he had several bad positions and at one point Shelby Lyman announced > on his TV Show =93Fischer has lost the game=94. It turned out that Fische= r > did not lose. He found a resource that saved the draw. Somewhat lose analysis. You see, what are you really asking? The Fischer who played the second match against Spassky was a joke upon the first FIscher who went those 20 games against top players without sharing a point! > The advent of computer databases and computer playing chess programs > does not really answer the question. Having all these computers helps, > but one still needs a man to actually play the game. Also, getting the > opponent out of the book and into a situation the opponent could not > have prepared for is not that difficult. > > A situation that occurred in Iceland while Fischer was living there as > a Fugitive from the George Bush Version of Justice occurred during a > game played on an Icelandic Television Broadcast on September 12, > 2006. The game went: > > Thorfinsson, Bragi - Gunnarson, Arnar [C50] > Icelandic TV, 09.12.2006 > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.d3 Be6 5.Bxe6 fxe6 6.c3 Qd7 7.0-0 Nf6 > 8.b4 a6 9.a4 Be7 10.Na3 0-0 11.Nc4 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Na5 d5 14.Bg5 > Bd6 15.Re1 h6 16.Bh4 Nxa5 17.bxa5 b4 18.Qb3 Qb5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.c4 > dxc4 21.dxc4 Qc6 22.Nh4 Kh7 23.c5 Be7 24.Qxb4 Bxc5 25.Qb3 Bd4 26.Rac1 > Qd7 27.Qa3 Qd6 28.Qf3 Rxa5 29.Qh5 Rg8 30.Qf7+? Rg7 31.Qxf6 Ra2? 32.Rf1 > Re2 33.Qf3 Rd2 34.Qf6 Re2 35.h3? Rxe4 =A036.Rc6. Qxc6, =A037.Nf5 > > Here, Black blundered and lost. As this game was played live on TV > with grandmaster commentators, everybody was surprised when the phone > rang. A mysterious voice was on the line, which the grandmasters > recognized. It was Bobby Fischer. > > Fischer had seen a fantastic combination, that all the grandmasters on > the spot had missed. It went: > > 37...Rxg2+! 38.Kh1 (White cannot retake because of 38.Kxg2 Rg4++ > 39.Kh2 Qg2 mate) 38...Rh4!! 39.Qf7+ Rg7+ (discovered check!) 40.f3 > Rxh3 mate. > > The question is: Would any of today's top grandmasters, would > Kasparov, Anand, Topalov or Carlsen, have seen this fantastic > combination? If not, could they really have hoped to beat Fischer in > his prime? I think you already have Anand's opinion that if the 1972 Fischer showed up, he would get swallowed whole. Whether Fischer would have the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is a fair one. On the whole I think he would not have done well in this current era. Phil Innes > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sam Sloan     Date: 14 Jan 2009 02:49:54 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 11, 5:33=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: An irrelevant ad hominist wrote: > > Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct > > statement that there was a gap between Fischer and > > those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was > > that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. Mr. Sloan -- a man once believed to be fairly intelligent by the naive Mr. Wlod -- replied: > Most of your statements in this thread are so ridiculous that there is > no point in responding to them. > > You seem to feel that Fischer's score of 18 1/2 - 2 1/2 in the three > candidates matches leading up to the match against Spassky and his 21 > game winning streak are of little significance. > > Would you kindly tell us by name who these "strongest competitors" > were that Fischer refused to play? There you have it-- further proof -- as if any were reall needed -- of the lack of intelligence of Mr. Sloan. The discussion has clearly indicated that people were talking about two specific players: Mr. Karpov and Mr. Kasparov. In fact, I had to "remind" one poor chap that in 1992, it was no longer Mr. Karpov but Mr. Kasparov who was the man to beat. All this not only escaped the notice of Mr. Sloan, but he was also unable to figure it out just from the fact that Mr. Fischer did not duck anyone else (apart from chickening out of backing up his offer to give "any woman in the world" Knight odds). The key terms, "strongest" and "competitors", ought to have helped, but it seems that Mr. Sloan is a man who cannot quite put two and two together. Unfortunately, the pathetic ad hominist has forgotten about the numerous claims tossed out by Mr. Sloan in support, and has it that there was but one such claim-- the gap; in reality, there were so many of these wild- eyed, sweeping claims that I decided not to even bother listing and refuting each of them. A bit later, even Mr. Murray went ga-ga over Bobby Fischer, and I did the same thing. As we now know, it is Rybka who deserves all this swooning over and heart-throbbing; her amazing chess skills dwarf those of all those "other" players-- the wannabees and pretenders. In seconds, she refutes their moves (or confirms their soundness); in a single human heart-beat, she easily finds combinations that we humans struggle to even comprehend! She is already giving odds of pawns and move, and soon she may be ready to take up Mr. Fischer's challenge-- that of /giving him/ Knight odds. -- help bot     Date: 11 Jan 2009 07:45:08 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 11, 5:33=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct > > statement that there was a gap between Fischer and > > those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was > > that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. > > Most of your statements in this thread are so ridiculous that there is > no point in responding to them. The ridiculous statements you chose to quote are (a) one in agreement with yourself, and (b) that the W Ch ducked Karpov, and settled for Spasky alone and that some years later. Those aren't even interpretations of anything, they are plain as day facts. > You seem to feel that Fischer's score of 18 1/2 - 2 1/2 in the three > candidates matches leading up to the match against Spassky and his 21 > game winning streak are of little significance. Significance to what? Not to Elo ratings, which is where the conversation has progressed as a measure of Fischer's achievement. Match play lacks sufficient 'k' to have that sort of measurement be statistical valid. Stating this in no way reduces [unequalled?] Fischer's achievement. > Would you kindly tell us by name who these "strongest competitors" Since you have so far misunderstood all the items you here comment upon - I think you should stick to basics, since if you did understand as much as the rest of us, you wouldn't need to ask. Essentially, we are addressing the post 1972 period where Fischer had become world champion - and assessing the strength of those around him, post 1972. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan     Date: 11 Jan 2009 02:33:29 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct > statement that there was a gap between Fischer and > those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was > that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. Most of your statements in this thread are so ridiculous that there is no point in responding to them. You seem to feel that Fischer's score of 18 1/2 - 2 1/2 in the three candidates matches leading up to the match against Spassky and his 21 game winning streak are of little significance. Would you kindly tell us by name who these "strongest competitors" were that Fischer refused to play? Sam Sloan       Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:50:53 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? samsloan wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:01 am, [email protected] wrote: > >> Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct >> statement that there was a gap between Fischer and >> those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was >> that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. > > Most of your statements in this thread are so ridiculous that there is > no point in responding to them. > > You seem to feel that Fischer's score of 18 1/2 - 2 1/2 in the three > candidates matches leading up to the match against Spassky and his 21 > game winning streak are of little significance. > > Would you kindly tell us by name who these "strongest competitors" > were that Fischer refused to play? > > Sam Sloan 0) Karpov -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/     Date: 09 Jan 2009 04:24:29 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 3:58=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:23:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >> At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from > >> Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some > >> level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest > >> opponent without some warm-up events. > >This implies that the match was part of a comeback. I have never > >seen any evidence to suggest that it was anything but a quick > >payday - possibly Fischer also enjoyed enhancing what he > >saw as his "rebel" credentials by playing the match in an > >outlaw state in violation of international and US law. > > We really don't know how he envisioned it. =A0He'd passed up other > opportunities for a quick payday. =A0Possibly, the match convinced him > he was too rusty. =A0Possibly, he envisioned follow-on matches and it > just never happened. =A0My point, =A0contra Phil, was, *any* statements > about Fischer's =A0reasoning, goals, or state of mind are speculative. Mike Murray - the one-issue poster- 'everyone else is wrong, especially Truong', here speculates on what other people can understand, calling that speculation. It may be for him, but he is speaking for the rest of us, so to speak, not himself. Actual result of contact with Fischer and 'his state of mind' does not seem to impress Mike Murray as other than speculation. As usual there isn't really any engagement of the subject that is not entirely dismissed by those who instead declare only their own views magnificent! THE ART OF PROJECTION What we all find ourselves in here is projection, and what if anything is convincing about projections is the degree of character and qualification that can be brought to support it. In terms of commentators we have conscious projectors who use know factors relating to the actual Fischer to support their point of view - and we have unconscious projectors who argue no such content themselves, and dismiss the content of others. Contrast Sloan's original romantic proclamation and his obvious rejection of anything put before him - so that he ignores what people are saying about Fischer after 1972, to only concede by 1992 they may have a point. Fischer Spassky II was a preparation for nothing, except a very hypothetical Fischer Spassky III. Obviously, despite all the FIDE shenanigans, Fischer ducked the strongest player of the time, W CH Karpov. As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21st Fischer incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking his Elo, or more centrally, his ego! And we know His Great Excuse or self-diversiont was to do with creating the condition by which he fell out with everyone, including his own country collectively. Hardly the best W Ch ever. Only the demonstrably best W Ch of his own era, and evidently Fischer had just that one shot in him. Those things are not speculations - those things actually happened. Phil Innes       Date: 09 Jan 2009 10:11:42 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:24:29 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: >THE ART OF PROJECTION >What we all find ourselves in here is projection, Is this why Phil always accuses people who disagree with him of "McCarthyism" ? >Fischer Spassky II was a preparation for nothing, except a very >hypothetical Fischer Spassky III. Obviously, despite all the FIDE >shenanigans, Fischer ducked the strongest player of the time, W CH >Karpov. >As for reasoning and state of mind, I would think the C21st Fischer >incapable of attending sufficiently to GM level chess - he was far >more interested in the 'blood-lines' of even journalists and camera >crews - as well as attending on his Great Excuse for not risking his >Elo, or more centrally, his ego! >And we know His Great Excuse or self-diversiont was to do with >creating the condition by which he fell out with everyone, including >his own country collectively. Phil engages in speculation, but speculation of a very poor quality. In this thread, Phil continually conflates two issues: (1) Fischer's ranking in the pantheon of world champions and (2) Fischer's mindset at various points in his career. My posts in this thread have addressed only the latter -- something that Phil (and evidently, the Bot) seems not to have understood. Whatever afflicted Fischer's mind, it caused him to do many things over the course of his life that were obviously contrary to his own self interest. He passed up millions of dollars in risk and effort-free endorsements. He alienated many friends and associates who virtually worshiped the ground on walked on. He dumped a fortune donating to crock religious sect. He lived as a street person for many years. He neglected his health. Call this set of acts "Fischer 1". He also failed to defend his World Championship against Karpov. And in his 1992 comeback, he chose an opponent long past his prime. He needlessly made remarks in 2001 that put him on the radar screen of a vindictive U.S. administration. Call this set of acts "Fischer 2". Of all the counter-productive actions in Fischer's life, Phil imputes a twisted rationality to those in "Fischer 2", claiming they were orchestrated to provide an excuse to avoid playing top opposition. My point: why assume these "Fischer 2" acts were any more rational than the others? It's pure speculation. It's like primitive man, looking for angry gods to explain the thunder. >Hardly the best W Ch ever. Only the demonstrably best W Ch of his own >era, and evidently Fischer had just that one shot in him. Those things >are not speculations - those things actually happened. > >Phil Innes     Date: 09 Jan 2009 04:02:21 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:38=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct > > statement that there was a gap between Fischer and > > those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was > > that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. > > Wait a second! > > On his way to the world championship in 1972, Fischer played and > defeated all of the strongest players in the world. Your correspondent is not arguing that point, but that after 1972 [not in 1992] Fischer was through. Against all speculation was the actual fact that Fischer didn't play more public chess at high levels. Fischer's achievement isn't contested. That this one run of incredible play makes him top W Ch ever is not a definition of 'top W CH' that anyone here seems to like. For that title, we would have to award Kasparov the crown - since he stayed in the game and played all the tough young kiddies at chess. Phil Innes > Spassky, Petrosian and Larsen were without doubt the strongest players > in the world and prior to that he had wiped out all the players in the > Interzonal. > > It is only true that in 1992 by playing Spassky again, he was not > playing one of the strongest players in the world. > > Sam Sloan     Date: 09 Jan 2009 03:53:34 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:38=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Jan 9, 5:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct > > statement that there was a gap between Fischer and > > those he played. That was but one of many wild claims made by Mr. Sloan; he made quite a few other ridiculous ones which are hardly even worth refuting here. > > Of course, what Sloan failed to note was > > that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. > Wait a second! > > On his way to the world championship in 1972, Fischer played and > defeated all of the strongest players in the world. Not true. In the course of a single cycle, one rarely faces *all* the best players, since there were rules which victimized those who might be from a particular country... say the USSR, for instance. In this case, Mr. Tal was setting records for most games in-a-row without a single loss-- yet there was no head-to-head match between MT and BF. Also note that it was not BF who eliminated such players as Victor Korthcnoi-- one of several "problem opponents" for BF; as I recall, it was a "problem opponent" of VK's who did that... as if it were all planned. > Spassky, Petrosian and Larsen were without doubt the strongest players > in the world According to a famous quote of Tigran Petrosian himself, "both Spassky and Kortchnoi were playing better chess than Fischer", circa 1970. Clearly then, there was some doubt. Mr. Spassky had never lost even a single game to BF, and there reportedly was an article in the Russian press about VK having the best record against the world's elite (which seems to imply he wasn't nearly as good a rabbit basher as BF). > and prior to that he had wiped out all the players in the > Interzonal. Some of the best players in the world are exempted from competing in the interzonal, based on their stellar performances in the prior cycle, for instance. The world champ- ion himself is exempted. > It is only true that in 1992 by playing Spassky again, he was not > playing one of the strongest players in the world. Not only was BF "not playing one of the strongest players in the world", he was playing a fellow whose world ranking had fallen off a cliff. Mr. Fischer might just as well have challenged, say, Edmar Mednis or offered Knight odds to Shelby Lyman. The rabid Fischerites were chattering about a "warm-up" match with Mr. Karpov, followed by a good shellacking of the King himself, Mr. Kasparov. So much for their preposterous projections, often based on idiotic hearsay such as "he beat some guy twenty-zip at blitz chess". Mr. Fischer's case reminds me of Paul Morphy's in that they both retired from active play at the peak of glory... thus leaving a false impression of near- invincibility. Nobody is truly invincible; I have Rybka here, if they want to suggest otherwise. And if that doesn't work, we can make them give Rybka Knight odds-- that will take them down a peg. -- help bot     Date: 09 Jan 2009 02:38:29 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 5:01=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct > statement that there was a gap between Fischer and > those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was > that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors. Wait a second! On his way to the world championship in 1972, Fischer played and defeated all of the strongest players in the world. Spassky, Petrosian and Larsen were without doubt the strongest players in the world and prior to that he had wiped out all the players in the Interzonal. It is only true that in 1992 by playing Spassky again, he was not playing one of the strongest players in the world. Sam Sloan     Date: 09 Jan 2009 02:01:10 From: Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 12:58=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:23:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >> At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from > >> Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some > >> level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest > >> opponent without some warm-up events. > >This implies that the match was part of a comeback. I have never > >seen any evidence to suggest that it was anything but a quick > >payday - possibly Fischer also enjoyed enhancing what he > >saw as his "rebel" credentials by playing the match in an > >outlaw state in violation of international and US law. > > We really don't know how he envisioned it. =A0He'd passed up other > opportunities for a quick payday. =A0Possibly, the match convinced him > he was too rusty. =A0Possibly, he envisioned follow-on matches and it > just never happened. =A0My point, =A0contra Phil, was, *any* statements > about Fischer's =A0reasoning, goals, or state of mind are speculative. First, there are quite reasonable speculations about Fischer's state of mind which are consistent with his actual behavior. More important, Fischer's actual behavior is important in the assessment of his "greatness" no matter whether we have speculated correctly on his state of mind. Bottom line - he didn't face his challengers and that means something. Sloan's original argument was based on the basically correct statement that there was a gap between Fischer and those he played. Of course, what Sloan failed to note was that Fischer refused to play his strongest competitors.     Date: 09 Jan 2009 01:55:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Jan 9, 3:58=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:23:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > >> At any rate, his failure to challenge (or accept a challenge) from > >> Karpov as his first opponent after a twenty-year hiatus indicates some > >> level of rationality on his part -- you don't take on your strongest > >> opponent without some warm-up events. > >This implies that the match was part of a comeback. I have never > >seen any evidence to suggest that it was anything but a quick > >payday - possibly Fischer also enjoyed enhancing what he > >saw as his "rebel" credentials by playing the match in an > >outlaw state in violation of international and US law. > We really don't know how he envisioned it. =A0He'd passed up other > opportunities for a quick payday. =A0Possibly, the match convinced him > he was too rusty. =A0Possibly, he envisioned follow-on matches and it > just never happened. =A0My point, =A0contra Phil, was, *any* statements > about Fischer's =A0reasoning, goals, or state of mind are speculative. Indeed, the idea that any statements like this are speculative fails to account for the fact that there is no evidence of any "comeback" requiring alleged "warm-up" events. There is also the small matter of the writer of the top paragraph (I'm playing it safe this time by not guessing) getting another fact wrong: Mr. Karpov was hardly Mr. Fischer's "strongest" prospective opponent. The fact is, Mr. Kasparov was at that time the strongest; next perhaps came DeepBlue; and only then do we come to Mr. Karpov; in any case, there was no doubt that GK was the man to beat in 1992, not AK. In another paragraph like the one at top, there appeared yet another intellectual faux pas by our wannabe Fischer analyst: a comment was carelessly tossed out regarding Mr. Spassky being in practice, and Mr. Fischer purportedly wanting to show the world he could still win by a similar margin as in 1972. Clearly, the margin of victory -- and victory itself -- could not have been known in advance; likewise, although it is true that Mr. Spassky was still active, his poor results marked this as an extraordinary case of a former world champ falling off much more rapidly than is normal. Thus, Mr. Fischer's selection of BS as his opponent reveals only that after analyzing his games, BF felt confident of a fairly easy victory. As I recall, the talking heads at the time revealed their grotesque pro-Fischer bias by insisting that in calculating the performance of both players, one needed to toss out the laws of arithmetic and adopt newfangled ideas in which one incorporates /personal bias/ as if it were math! These imbeciles somehow decided amongst themselves that they could grant both players a hundred rating points or so, to be split between them so as to make discussion of Fischer-is-still-champion fairy tales a bit less preposterous-looking. As I recall, one of the posters to this thread recklessly threw out the number "2600" as Mr. Spassky's 1992 FIDE rating, when in fact it was /considerably lower/ (believe it or not). This is typical for those idiots who are trying to justify their obsession with Mr. Fischer; they make numerous wild-eyed claims which could easily be refuted by a child, and seem incapable of any rational discussion of the matter. Apparently, the only way to solve this problem is to wait for such fanatics to gradually die off, one by one; this not only requires the patience of Joab, but also the longetivity of Methusela... . -- help bot     Date: 08 Jan 2009 11:22:42 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:54:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote: > Whether Fischer would have >the temperament to actually utilize modern databases and computers is >a fair one. On the whole I think he would not have done well in this >current era. Why would someone who taught himself Russian and other languages in order to study chess literature, someone who had an enormous capacity for work, lack the temperament to master the use of databases and computers? Seems like these tools would only have made him *more* effective.   Date: 08 Jan 2009 10:49:05 From: Offramp Subject: Re: Was Bobby Fischer the Greatest Player Ever? > If not, could they really have hoped to beat Fischer in > his prime? "Mm-mmm! You got yerself some prime chess-player there boy. (Prods Fischer's Butt-arks) I is gonna give that the Sam Sloan Seal Of Succulence!" There's a hissing sound as Fischer's butt-arks are singed with the phrase "100% Prime Chess player."