"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 5:50 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**I'll look this up, and report later

I wasn't asking for the two to be compared. I was asking what photos
does the Russian edition have? The English edition has portraits and
autographs of Pillsbury, Burn, Mason, Tinsley, Pollock, Schiffers,
Tarrasch, Marco, Gunsberg, Janowski, Chigorin, Teichmann, Vergani,
Lasker, Blackburne, Steinitz, Albin, Bird, Schlechter, Mieses,
Walbrodt, and Bardeleben, i.e. all 22 contestants (I was wrong earlier
when I said not all were shown). Does the Russian edition have these,
plus more besides?


**well, yes - but what is this to recommend the originali players OTB,
rather than in analysis? Tal killed that approach.

That's not my point. My question is, has Taimanov done original
analysis, or does he merely repeat what is in the 1896 book? This game
indicates perhaps the latter, but only a detailed comparison can tell
for sure.

**The publisher offers two book of the same name, the first looks like a
facsimile edition of the original, at $17 and the second, this one, is
copyright 1995, 330 pages and $13. One way to determine differences is if
you post the annotation from a game which has few comments, and I'll
compare. I think copyrighting the edition cannot be done from brief
introductory preface alone.

Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that
MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the
denouement
at 46.

Sounds a lot like the 1896 notes by S. Tinsley, who gives 8 notes
for the first 17 moves. Can you be specific about what Taimanov says?

I can give his notes to the analysis. Let me chose this game then, to see
what's what - as above.

**Surely he will have overrtakenn Tinsley. MT being a somewhat stronger
player.

No argument there. But to know if MT did any original analysis for
that game, we'd need you to translate and present what MT said, and
then we could compare it to Tinsley's notes.

but not all 330 pages - if you want, go first and post tinssley's notes.

**And which must return us to the point of these retrospective ratings -
and
if they were at all the equivalent of modern ones? It seems somewhat
dishonest to me to make such comparison, as if... Laker eg was to be
considered as 2700, against a modern player, the same rating.

No, I agree that is not the correct understanding of the ratings.
Comparing historical to current Elos across such a gulf of years is
invalid. We can definitely say that Lasker's 2720 trumps Tarrasch's
2610, but we can't say that Lasker's 2720 circa 1900 equals a 2720
today.

I think such
as a Mickey Adams would crush him again and again and suffer no defeats -
probably not even any draws.

That might be taking it a bit too far.

**And in the spirit of the thing ! - so what is between 'too far' and 'not
equivalent'?

so I would add that eg Adams/Svidler even Carlsen would defeat Lasker 50 -
0

I'd say that is definitely taking it too far! :-)

**My ex team captain was sort of retrospectively given an honorary IM
title - and Peter Clarke's own opinion is that he could deal with the
Hastings 1895 line up - certainly well enough to come in at or near the top
of the chart. In that sense, he did not assess any of those players to be
even 2500 [Fide not USCF]. As a conversation point 2 things then occur to
me; (a) how strong do we really think these players were? Perhaps an
intermediary rating given Alekhine at 2650 is some measure? I have no doubt
that Alekhine would defeat all these players - and also that Carlsen et al
would easily take Alekhine. Perhaps Lasker alone deserves a nominal 2550, a
head above the next best couple of players at 2500, and the rest 2200-2400?
Therefore that 2720 estimate for Lasker is a nonsense on the current scale.
(b) the usual argument for players of other eras to compete with those of
our time is that they would subsume all the knowledge and technique
available to moderns - this argument cannot be refuted, since self-evidently
they would be able to take /some/ advantage of it. But that is not the real
comparison here - which is that these world class players from 1895 would
place lower than even young tyros these days.

The slight cartoon result of 50-0 is thereby provocative to 'how far is too
far?' - we agree 2720 can't be claimed - so what can? Quite serious Russian
players don't think these original top players from 100 years ago would even
earn a GM ticket these days.

Phil Innes