On Jun 5, 1:13 am, help bot wrote:

I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
In one case, a writer just guessed who was
playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
winner was one fellow or another. A little more
reading led to the discovery that certain
sweeping conclusions were based on the
result of a single game... and that this game
had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
of chess "marathon", by todays standards.

Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
was indeed capable of executing a mating
attack on a completely defenseless King, but
earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
players in the world; or any number of others.

-- help bot

Your research is not very good. According to Chessmetrics, Von Der
Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
1840.

There are many recorded and published games by Bilguer, not just one.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Jun 5, 1:13 am, help bot wrote:

I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
In one case, a writer just guessed who was
playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
winner was one fellow or another. A little more
reading led to the discovery that certain
sweeping conclusions were based on the
result of a single game... and that this game
had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
of chess "marathon", by todays standards.

Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
was indeed capable of executing a mating
attack on a completely defenseless King, but
earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
players in the world; or any number of others.

-- help bot

Your research is not very good. According to Chessmetrics, Von Der
Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
1840.

There are many recorded and published games by Bilguer, not just one.

Sam Sloan

If anybody is interested, here is a link to a book by von der Lasa that
describes the circumstances under which many of the games in the
Berlin Chess Club were played:

http://books.google.de/books?id=RicC...PJPgiQG2gZHvBA

The 'Plejades' group (Bledow, Schorn, Horwitz, Mayet, Hanstein, Bilguer, von
der Lasa), among
whom Bledow was recognized as the strongest player, regularly met in order
to study openings.
Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequences
of particular opening moves.
Many others were essentially skittles games that were reorded in order to
study the opening later.
Practically none were played under tournament conditions. Furthermore, in
the Bilguer games
collections the losing player is often unnamed. Guesses were made later.

Incidentally, any good (general) library has the Bilguer books in various
editions. I just checked
the Bavarian State Library: They have 7 different editions, including the
6th.
The NY Public Library also has 7 different editions, also including the 6th.
(Note that
Sloan "searched everywhere" without discovering this fact.)

The link above points to a book digitized in the course of the Google
project at the
New York Public Library. Very soon practically any out-of-copyright book
will be
available in this form. Google isn't the only organization with a gigantic
digitization
project. Soon anybody can make a copy for about 3 cents a page.

On Jun 5, 4:17 am, samsloan wrote:

Your research is not very good

True. I was severely limited by the fact that the
online resources seemed to know little or nothing
on the subject of Mr. Bilguer's chess strength.

Reliable sources like, say, Edward Winter, came
up blank in my search, while two articles which
attempted to discuss the matter were written by
dullards.


to Chessmetrics, Von Der
Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
1840.

Mr. Sloan, you seem to have a bit of trouble
following chronology. If, as you assert, Mr. Lasa
was the strongest player in the world in the year
1851, that tells us nothing about his strength in
the year 1840. And if, as you assert, Mr. Bilguer
won the majority of his games against Mr. Lasa
prior to his death, then we would need to look at
Mr. Lasa'a strength in the earlier time-frame, not
in 1851. This is elementary logic-- a subject with
which many posters here appear to have grave
difficulties.

On the Web site chessmetrics.com, Mr. Bilguer
is not even listed. And if you go to the Web site
chessgames.com, you will find some games, but
these are quite possibly the ones I discussed
earlier; the ones where the original source did not
specify who was who, but merely guessed at the
identity of one of the two players-- the one whose
first initial was "B", as in Bledow, or Bilguer, or... .

One more item I should probably mention is
that Mr. Bilguer is described as a very sick man,
who apparently went blind while suffering from
"consumption"; this raises the possibility that
certain kind-hearted folk would not have been
inclined to "watch him squirm", to crush his ego,
to smash him like carrots. (Not so with Howard
Staunton-- a man who needed taking down a
peg or two.)

What my "not very good" research uncovered
was the fact that some writers were using mere
guesswork -- and faulty logic -- to back their
claims regarding Mr. Bilguer's purported
strength. Compare and contrast to the very
real evidence which exists for a few other
famous players of that era-- players who we
know to have been the strongest in the world.

In truth, even the name "Bilguer's handbook"
does not accurately reflect the reality, since
Mr. Lasa completed even the very first edition,
not Mr. Bilguer. It reminds me of all those
famous singers and actors who have died in
plane crashes-- their careers never shone so
bright as when they breathed their last. This
poor chap seems to have *gained* in strength
after dying... .


-- help bot

On Jun 5, 5:30 am, Jürgen R. wrote:

Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequences
of particular opening moves. Many others were essentially skittles games that were recorded in order to
study the opening later. Practically none were played under tournament conditions.

This of course is true, especially since the first international
tournament was London 1851, 11 years after Bilguer had died.

Regular tournament play did not start until the 1870s. Virtually all
the games before then that we have today are essentially coffee house
or skittles games or from informal matches. Paul Morphy only played in
one tournament in his life. All of the other games we have are only
because Morphy wrote them down. Yet, we have no problem saying that
Morphy was the strongest player of his era. How do we know that Morphy
did not just throw away the scores of all the games he lost? How can
we judge the strength of any of the players of that era?

What I wrote was that Bilguer was "regarded as one of the strongest
players in the world". That statement is true. It may have been that
Bilguer was just a patzer who only kept and published games that he
won. We have no way of knowing that now.

Printing of my book is progressing rapidly and it seems that it will
be out in just a few days mo
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404

Sam Sloan

On Jun 5, 5:30 am, Jürgen R. wrote:
"samsloan" schrieb im ...



On Jun 5, 1:13 am, help bot wrote:

I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
In one case, a writer just guessed who was
playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
winner was one fellow or another. A little more
reading led to the discovery that certain
sweeping conclusions were based on the
result of a single game... and that this game
had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
of chess "marathon", by todays standards.

Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
was indeed capable of executing a mating
attack on a completely defenseless King, but
earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
players in the world; or any number of others.

-- help bot

Your research is not very good. According to Chessmetrics, Von Der
Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
1840.

There are many recorded and published games by Bilguer, not just one.

Sam Sloan

If anybody is interested, here is a link to a book by von der Lasa that
describes the circumstances under which many of the games in the
Berlin Chess Club were played:

http://books.google.de/books?id=RicC...rontcover&dq=b...

The 'Plejades' group (Bledow, Schorn, Horwitz, Mayet, Hanstein, Bilguer, von
der Lasa), among
whom Bledow was recognized as the strongest player, regularly met in order
to study openings.
Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequences
of particular opening moves.
Many others were essentially skittles games that were reorded in order to
study the opening later.
Practically none were played under tournament conditions. Furthermore, in
the Bilguer games
collections the losing player is often unnamed. Guesses were made later.

Incidentally, any good (general) library has the Bilguer books in various
editions. I just checked
the Bavarian State Library: They have 7 different editions, including the
6th.
The NY Public Library also has 7 different editions, also including the 6th.
(Note that
Sloan "searched everywhere" without discovering this fact.)

The link above points to a book digitized in the course of the Google
project at the
New York Public Library. Very soon practically any out-of-copyright book
will be
available in this form. Google isn't the only organization with a gigantic
digitization
project. Soon anybody can make a copy for about 3 cents a page.

Thank you for the link above, which is interesting and useful.

However, you are apparently not aware of the condition of these books
in the New York Public Library. The library staff brings them to you
in a box because the pages chip off as you try to turn them. You
cannot even photocopy the pages at any price, much less at three cents
a page, because the pages will break. The New York Public Library has
overhead scanners in non-public areas which are like Fort Knox (I know
that because I tried to get in there). I reproduced one book using
their services but that was a much more modern book dated 1927. The
results were not satisfactory:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891099

Chess players will want a book where they can flip through the pages,
looking up moves, or carry them to the men's room in big tournaments.
A book so fragile that it cannot even be touched is useless. Also,
people do not like to read online books. They want books made of paper
that they can hold in their hands and flip through.

Sam Sloan

On Jun 5, 5:41 am, help bot wrote:

Mr. Sloan, you seem to have a bit of trouble
following chronology. If, as you assert, Mr. Lasa
was the strongest player in the world in the year
1851, that tells us nothing about his strength in
the year 1840. And if, as you assert, Mr. Bilguer
won the majority of his games against Mr. Lasa
prior to his death, then we would need to look at
Mr. Lasa'a strength in the earlier time-frame, not
in 1851. This is elementary logic-- a subject with
which many posters here appear to have grave
difficulties.

On the Web site chessmetrics.com, Mr. Bilguer
is not even listed. And if you go to the Web site
chessgames.com, you will find some games, but
these are quite possibly the ones I discussed
earlier; the ones where the original source did not
specify who was who, but merely guessed at the
identity of one of the two players-- the one whose
first initial was "B", as in Bledow, or Bilguer, or... .

-- help bot

Chessmetrics only goes back to 1850, because there were no tournaments
before then. That is why Bilguer is not listed, since he died in 1840.
Bilguer and Von Der Lasa were about the same age, Bilguer was three
years older, so games between then are a reasonable comparison of
their relative strengths.

If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
wins by me.

Sam Sloan

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:


Regular tournament play did not start until the 1870s. Virtually all
the games before then that we have today are essentially coffee house
or skittles games or from informal matches. Paul Morphy only played in
one tournament in his life. All of the other games we have are only
because Morphy wrote them down. Yet, we have no problem saying that
Morphy was the strongest player of his era. How do we know that Morphy
did not just throw away the scores of all the games he lost? How can
we judge the strength of any of the players of that era?

AFAIK, most of the Morphy games were recorded by spectators.

[...]
However, you are apparently not aware of the condition of these books
in the New York Public Library. The library staff brings them to you
in a box because the pages chip off as you try to turn them. You
cannot even photocopy the pages at any price, much less at three cents
a page, because the pages will break.

Are you really so dense? These books *are* being digitized and
made available on the internet. And once this has happened *then*
you can print them on your laser printer at home much more cheaply than
your Amazon copies.

The old, fragile books that almost nobody is allowed to touch
are now being digitized, mechanically, essentially untouched by human hands.
Every significant library in the world is doing this today.


The New York Public Library has
overhead scanners in non-public areas which are like Fort Knox (I know
that because I tried to get in there). I reproduced one book using
their services but that was a much more modern book dated 1927. The
results were not satisfactory:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891099

Chess players will want a book where they can flip through the pages,
looking up moves, or carry them to the men's room in big tournaments.

Of course, it is much more pleasant to read a physical book than to
stare at a screen. However, it is also *much* more convenient to have
dictionaries and encyclopedias on the PC than on the bookshelf, i.e.
books that you don't read page by page.

A book so fragile that it cannot even be touched is useless. Also,
people do not like to read online books. They want books made of paper
that they can hold in their hands and flip through.

Sam Sloan

On Jun 5, 8:26 am, samsloan wrote:

Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequences
of particular opening moves. Many others were essentially skittles games that were recorded in order to
study the opening later. Practically none were played under tournament conditions.

This of course is true, especially since the first international
tournament was London 1851, 11 years after Bilguer had died.

LOL. I think it is fair to say that absolutely none
of those games were played under "tournament"
conditions.


Regular tournament play did not start until the 1870s. Virtually all
the games before then that we have today are essentially coffee house
or skittles games or from informal matches. Paul Morphy only played in
one tournament in his life. All of the other games we have are only
because Morphy wrote them down. Yet, we have no problem saying that
Morphy was the strongest player of his era. How do we know that Morphy
did not just throw away the scores of all the games he lost? How can
we judge the strength of any of the players of that era?

Paul Morphy is hardly the only player to have
recorded chess games back then.

If you look at the vast majority of PM's games,
you /will notice/ that he was a lot stronger than
players like you and me. And if you look at his
overall record against the other top players, you
will notice that apart from any who ducked him,
he outscored them consistently. Mr. Morphy's
weakness was that his career lasted for such
a brief time, so we have no way of knowing
how he might have fared against the next great
chess player to come along.


What I wrote was that Bilguer was "regarded as one of the strongest
players in the world". That statement is true. It may have been that
Bilguer was just a patzer who only kept and published games that he
won. We have no way of knowing that now.

Who regarded him as such? And when,
exactly? My very quick research on the 'net
found dullards who made such assertions,
but they were long on words, and short on
facts of any substance.


Printing of my book is progressing rapidly and it seems that it will
be out in just a few days mohttp://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404

I wanted to suggest adding something of
value to the reprint, but in view of it's length,
that would be unlikely to pan out. I have a
feeling that printed books are s-l-o-w-l-y on
their way out. Far superior are computerized
books, which can be searched in a flash, no
matter how thick or in what font. Imagine if
you will, an openings "book" where all the
reader has to do is set up a position on the
graphical chess board, and instantly, every
comment relating to that specific position
is presented, sans effort. Alas, one will
still have to press the power button in order
to boot up the computer, and speak a few
commands (yes, speak them), but that is
about it; no more grueling searches or
complaints of "inadequate" indexing.


-- help bot

On Jun 5, 9:07 am, samsloan wrote:

Chessmetrics only goes back to 1850, because there were no tournaments
before then. That is why Bilguer is not listed, since he died in 1840.
Bilguer and Von Der Lasa were about the same age, Bilguer was three
years older, so games between then are a reasonable comparison of
their relative strengths.

In fact, not all players progress in gaining chess
strength at the same time.


If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
wins by me.

If a random person who knew nothing about
the strength of Sam Sloan were to look at
only the results on chessgames.com, he
might make that mistake; but an examination
of the games themselves would unveil the
truth. That's why I like to examine games, in
addition to knowing a player's purported
results against other, purportedly strong chess
players; it puts things into better perspective.


-- help bot