On Mar 22, 8:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

oups.com...



As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games.

Wrong. I did present them, I didn't claim to. 'Claim to' is a Blairism. I
did present statistics on W Ch games! Not a good start!

As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.

As I pointed out two days ago, Kinsgston has not understood anything about
'the claimed' statistics even after reading 30 messages about them.

Phil, I understand Adorjan's numbers just fine, now that I see them
in context. The misunderstanding was entirely yours, giving them a
meaning and context Adorjan did not.

I hope Taylor Kingston has cited below any errors I made in reporting
Adorjan's numbers. But I hope the reader will also note that Kingston is
unable to find an 'all' in what I wrote, and forget to tell the reader that
he put the 'all' in. Since he can't cite any all, and now hides the fact
that it was him not me who put it there - in some ways, Kingston argues with
himself. BUT - it does have a happy ending!

Taylor Kingston, to resolve 'all' his 'issues' will also have to buy another
book! The forever! title already mentioned.

And then by misunderstanding something of what I wrote about that he can
then be puzzled about that too, and suggest I am trying to take over the
world.

Taylor Kinsgston at least finishes honestly, by saying I misrepresented
Adorjan's figures. Although, without actually reproducing all seven pages of
charts,

Phil, are you taking hallucinogens again? There are not "seven pages
of charts" in "Black Is Still OK!". The copy I got has charts only on
pages 68, 154, 155, 156, and 157. That's five pages, not seven. Please
tell us what pages the other two are on in your reality.
And really it's only three pages, since he simply represents the
data you referred to in three different ways: as straight numbers, as
a pie chart, and as a bar chart.

as I already said, then by ommission it would not be possible to do
otherwise.

If Kingston has something more grin concise to say, that is not already
covered by previous responses, specifically on how I misled the public, I
bet Louis Blair can't find it! And if Louis can't find it, it must be true!

Phil, have already pointed out your error in concise and full
detail. You're just being your usual chicken, evasive, water-muddying
self when it comes to admitting a mistake. No big deal, really -- it
wasn't that important a mistake. But I enjoy watching your ludicrous
attempts to extricate yourself. By trying to make it seem that your
molehill of a mistake was no mistake at all, you make a mountainous
fool of yourself.


OTOH

I am glad that Taylor Kingston has again upped the quality of American Book
Reviewing by actually reading one.

Phil Innes



The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(Seehttp://tinyurl.com/yqpve7for more details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm readers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -