The Historian wrote:
I shudder to think what Robtroll and Innes have cooked up - perhaps
that should be "kooked up" - for their Chess Vignits web****e.

At least have the intelligence, HisTrollian to "dis" me with a real
word! LOL
What an intellectual fascist joke you are!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Vignits

Even Zedbot is bored with you!

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Taylor Kingston wrote:

I suggest getting better grounded in chess history before making
blanket generalizations that underestimate some very great players.

I shudder to think

I concur! Brennan has never demonstrated that art.

what Robtroll and Innes have cooked up - perhaps
that should be "kooked up" - for their Chess Vignits web****e.

I note that this fascist **** is appearing in a thread on Elo, Fischer and
Karpov and is addressed to Taylor 'chess gene' Kingston, who just made a
huge boo-boo himself on chess history about his own blanket generalisation,
[vaguer-than-thou!] which is roundly refuted by a closer look, and by a
World Champion.

It is symptomatic [said Arendt] that the appearance of rationality,
documentation and knowledge is a requirement to write hate-speech against
others as a form of scientific dehumanization.

---
ON THE TOPIC of CHESS

I don't understand the issue here about the draw factor. Elo himself said,
if retrospectively, that all his previous machinations on statististics were
nought compared with the simple fact that Fischer :: Karpov was proposed,
when 9:9, to award the title to the first player to 10.

I suppose if the players draw the next 2 games there must be a resolution to
the scenario of endless draws, and THAT seems to be the point of contention.

Do I understand right? And mathematically or not, what should any resolution
be when both players have scored 10 points?

Phil Innes

On Nov 10, 8:22 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote
Sounds odd coming from him. While Alekhine did have strong natural
talent, it was probably not nearly as great as Capablanca's or
Reshevsky's, probably also below that of Lasker, maybe even below that
of Marshall, Janowski, Keres, Fine and a few other of his
contemporaries.

"Probably not nearly as great" but without saying why?

Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying
that the "why" lies mainly in the genes.

**What's this now? The other guys had a Chess gene?
**looks like a direct retort to this new idea you have of chess genes, why
don't you tell us more about your interesting idea?

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything with Phil Innes
is his habit of distortion and misrepresentation. In this case we see
him changing my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
idea of "chess genes," something I never said. That is typical Innes
intellectual dishonesty. In an effort to make my position clear enough
that even Phil may understand (but probably still won't), I will
explain at some length.

There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any more than there is a
gene for playing the piano, solving complex mathematical theorems,
reading printed English, firing a rifle, playing basketball, or any
number of other human skills, both mental and physical. However, a
person's genetic endowment _can_ have a definite effect on these and
other skills.
To give some simplistic examples for the sake of clarity, a person
born without hands would never be much of a piano player, a person born
blind will never read printed words or be a good rifle marksman, a
severely retarded person will never be able to add 2+2 let alone solve
Fermat's last theorem, and a person with genetic dwarfism will have a
considerable disadvantage playing basketball against a 7-footer.
Similarly, genetic endowment can affect one's ability to play chess.
A person with, say, Down's Syndrome, who cannot even understand the
rules, is an example.
Going in the other direction, history abounds in examples. Mozart
clearly had an inborn talent for music well beyond the ordinary. As a
child, Gauss could solve mathematical problems incomprehensible to most
adults. And in chess we have such child prodigies as Morphy,
Capablanca, and Reshevsky. While there is no "chess gene," clearly they
had some inborn talent that enabled them, as young children, to learn
about and understand chess far more thoroughly and rapidly, and excel
at it far beyond what 99% of adults can attain even with decades of
study.

**? Alekhine is regarded by most people as the most substantial player on
the planet since he left Russian in 1921 until the advent of the second
world war in 1939 - minus a few years off for booze.

Our Phil again revises chess history. Alekhine was not considered
"the most substantial player on the planet" until he defeated
Capablanca in 1927.

The question may be of 'natural talent', but I am still struggling
to understand what you mean by that, especially since you insist this is
'distinctly different' than overall success.

Talent and success are by no means synonymous, the tortoise and the
hare being the archetypal example. When it came to running, the hare
had vastly more talent than the tortoise. But he squandered it, and so
the tortoise, through pure persistence, won the race.
Similarly, a person 7 feet tall has a natural advantage in basketball
over someone only 6 feet tall. Yet if the the 6-footer works diligently
on his physical conditioning, shooting skills, ball-handling etc.,
while the 7-footer kicks back and drinks beer, the 6-footer may soon be
the better basketball player.
The same can apply to intellectual skills. In school, I knew guys who
boasted high IQs, had great intellectual talents, but they thought this
meant good grades should be handed to them on a silver platter. In
contrast, some lower-IQ over-achievers worked their asses off, and
graduated with higher GPAs than "the brains."

**So the question was why you should say that Alekhine had less of this
unidentified and possibly gene-related talent, than those you cited, being
Capablanca's, Reshevsky's, Lasker, Marshall, Janowski, Keres, Fine and 'a
few others.'

I hope my explanation above is allowing some light to dawn in Phil's
head. Now let me expand on it further. The case of Capablanca vs.
Alekhine is an excellent illustration of "nature vs. nurture," or as
they used to say, "heredity vs. environment."
Morphy, Capablanca and Reshevsky exhibited chess talent when quite
young. Morphy defeated Loewenthal, a world-class player, at age 13,
Capablanca won a match against the champion of Cuba at the same age,
and Reshevsky, the strongest of all child prodigies, was giving simuls
and beating all comers at age 6. At age 11 he defeated Janowski, a
top-level tournament veteran, once one of the world's top 5 or 6.
In contrast, Alekhine did not show that level of talent as a
youngster. He did not win so much as a club tournament until he was 16,
did not beat anyone of Loewenthal's or Janowski's stature until he was
19. This indicates to me that his natural, i.e. inborn, talent for
chess was not as great as Morphy's, Capablanca's, or Reshevsky's. It
was still quite high, compared to the average person, but it was, say,
a Mt. McKinley compared to Capablanca's Everest.
However, Alekhine had something Capa did not -- burning ambition, and
a tremendous willingness to work. This is how he ultimately overcame
the more talented Capablanca -- but it took years.

Thus my main reasons for thinking Alekhine's innate chess talent was
less than Capablanca's or Reshevsky's. Another reason was his
relatively poor performance in speed chess. In speed chess Capablanca,
Reshevsky, and also Reuben Fine, could find good moves almost
instantly, but Alekhine had to think about it, had to work.
A further reason is that Capablanca and Reshevsky did not have to
study to become world-class players. They seldom or never studied
opening manuals and the like, they just played logically and learned
from experience. Alekhine, in contrast, studied openings in minute
detail and memorized countless games by his rivals. Reshevsky, on the
other hand, was known not to recognize even his own games when someone
showed him one.

So, in my opinion, Alekhine was more successful than Capablanca not
because of greater talent, but because he out-worked him. Had
Capablanca studied, trained and conditioned himself the way Alekhine
did, and not been overconfident going into their 1927 match, I do not
think Alekhine would have won. Even so, with all his painstaking
preparation, it was extremely difficult for Alekhine to win the match,
because Capa's talent was so great.
In later years, we saw that when you get a combination of high
innate talent, *plus* strong work ethic, diligent study, and intense
training, you get a chess superman, Fischer and Kasparov being prime
examples.

I was more tentative about the others I named. My reasons for
thinking they probably had more natural talent than Alekhine are as
follows:

Lasker -- He stayed World Champion for 27 years, and in the world's
top 5 or 10 for another 15, while essentially doing chess in his spare
time. If he was so great at chess without working really hard at it, I
can see only one explanation: innate talent.
Janowski -- According to Chernev, Janowski never looked at a chess
book in his entire life, yet he was a tournament professional for 30
years, among the world's top 5 or 6 for several years, a world title
contender. I mentioned Marshall for similar reasons.
Keres -- Basically because he got so good so young. He was only 22
when he took first at AVRO 1938, the strongest tournament ever held to
that time.
Fine -- Managed at age 17 to draw with Alekhine (Pasadena 1932)
without ever studying openings.

Thus some of my reasons for thinking there is some genetic component
to chess ability, and that Alekhine's endowment in this area was less
than some others. This is quite different from the ridiculous idea that
there is a "chess gene." There is no such thing as a basketball gene
either, but certainly genetically determined factors such as height,
speed, and physical strength strongly affect one's ability to play
basketball.
So is it too, with chess, in my opinion. I have no idea what genetic
factors may be involved, but I strongly believe that just as genetic
endowment makes some people taller or shorter, physically stronger or
weaker, normally intelligent or retarded etc., so there are some
genetically determined aspects of brain development that affect one's
ability to play chess.

I may address Innes' ideas about Lasker in a later post.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 10, 8:22 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote
Sounds odd coming from him. While Alekhine did have strong natural
talent, it was probably not nearly as great as Capablanca's or
Reshevsky's, probably also below that of Lasker, maybe even below
that
of Marshall, Janowski, Keres, Fine and a few other of his
contemporaries.

"Probably not nearly as great" but without saying why?

Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying
that the "why" lies mainly in the genes.

**What's this now? The other guys had a Chess gene?
**looks like a direct retort to this new idea you have of chess genes,
why
don't you tell us more about your interesting idea?

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything with Phil Innes
is his habit of distortion and misrepresentation. In this case we see
him changing my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
idea of "chess genes," something I never said.

11/9/06 which is just yesterday Taylor Kingston wrote

"Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying that
the "why" lies mainly in the genes."

That is typical Innes

Well - the lie lies in your post yesterday, where there is this specific
mention of them, when asked about them we receive nothing but aspersive
abusse coupled with further eugenic postulants, with no inclination to
explain your theorum.

intellectual dishonesty. In an effort to make my position clear enough
that even Phil may understand (but probably still won't), I will
explain at some length.

There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any more than there is a
gene for playing the piano, solving complex mathematical theorems,

I know that! Which is why your previous statement of a chess gene is so very
curious.

reading printed English, firing a rifle, playing basketball, or any
number of other human skills, both mental and physical. However, a
person's genetic endowment _can_ have a definite effect on these and
other skills.

Today there is not a chess gene, not as Kingston himself wrote yesterday,
yet there is...

To give some simplistic examples for the sake of clarity, a person
born without hands would never be much of a piano player,

...

I think I am already bored by 'simplistic' examples, as I was bored by the
Kingston files. And was bored by all that intense writing about why even
authors could not represent their own titles, which Kingston could not, even
restrospectively, address - while calling those authors, and me, who he
shared his vituperative opinions with, by any assortment of gross
terminology as should occur to him.

Is the reader getting the picture?

I am even more bored why this clown recommends others as 'an ignoramus' or
like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, a murderer, drug-infested, and maybe I
missed one? Oh yeah, peyote!

pfft! Nothing here but sweet *nothings*. And very private *nothings*.

The reader should not take the Kingston Files as respresenting the same sort
of thing as is now written, since the author himself denies it, so pfft! He
probably wrote me 20,000 words on the weather, not on why certain people's
books should not be available to a public who wants to buy them, or that we
should even talk about this subject. *nothing* to do with book banning. And
today unlike yesterday *nothing* to do with genes.

Phil Innes

I snipped the rest, since it is more the same, and on the subject of dumbing
down American chess can't think of a single reason to reproduce it, as
analogous to what needs no analogy at all - what is needed is some light and
air to the subject, instead of these dug-in /festungen/ defenses long after
the battle passed by.

On Nov 10, 5:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything with Phil Innes
is his habit of distortion and misrepresentation. In this case we see
him changing my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
idea of "chess genes," something I never said.

11/9/06 which is just yesterday Taylor Kingston wrote

"Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying that
the "why" lies mainly in the genes."

Which quote has nothing in it about a "chess gene." Phil seems unable
to understand the difference between (A) the quite reasonable idea that
a specific skill may be affected by genetic factors related to it and
other similar skills, and (B) the implausible idea of a gene coded for
that exact specific skill.
To repeat my analogy, there is no doubt that height is affected by
genetic factors, and that height has considerable bearing on basketball
skills. That is not at all the same thing as claiming there is a
"basketball gene." To make another analogy, flying an airplane requires
good eyesight, quick reactions, eye-hand coordination, and other skills
that can be strongly affected by genetic factors. But again, this is
hardly claiming the existence of an airplane-flying gene.
Likewise, I have not claimed the existence of any "chess gene."

There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any more than there is a
gene for playing the piano, solving complex mathematical theorems,

I know that! Which is why your previous statement of a chess gene is so very
curious.

It seems our Phil wants to argue only with a false version of my
position. Perhaps he lacks any genes for honesty.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 10, 5:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything with Phil Innes
is his habit of distortion and misrepresentation. In this case we see
him changing my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
idea of "chess genes," something I never said.

11/9/06 which is just yesterday Taylor Kingston wrote

"Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying
that
the "why" lies mainly in the genes."

Which quote has nothing in it about a "chess gene."

Not another *nothing* - like book banning *nothing*?

Phil seems unable
to understand the difference between (A) the quite reasonable idea that
a specific skill may be affected by genetic factors related to it and
other similar skills,

And neither has medical science - the lat time I encountered this argument
was for a math-gene, not only that but an Asian math-gene. All sociological
arguments being rejected.

So besides what Kingston thinks Phil 'does not understand' what is his own
understanding of these fascinating ideas?

and (B) the implausible idea of a gene coded for
that exact specific skill.

Or any specific skill? Let's here more eugenic argument, then we will see if
I am as unable to understand as biologists.

To repeat my analogy,

ah! It was an analogy!

there is no doubt that height is affected by
genetic factors, and that height has considerable bearing on basketball
skills.

There is also no doubt that height is effected by diet, and Anglo Saxons eg,
were the same height as we were. Sugar also effects health. Only losuy diet
in the too-crowded middle-ages reduced the same people's height by over 6
inches.

That is not at all the same thing as claiming there is a
"basketball gene."

That's true - its a sociological factor to do with slavery, mainly of black
people, who were bred in a eugenics program to breed and be big

To make another analogy,

But not for my benefit! I don't need Beach Boys analogies to talk about
Alekhine or Lasker, or medical science. Kingston does, lacking what we call
any facts at all.

flying an airplane requires
good eyesight, quick reactions, eye-hand coordination, and other skills
that can be strongly affected by genetic factors. But again, this is
hardly claiming the existence of an airplane-flying gene.
Likewise, I have not claimed the existence of any "chess gene."

There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any more than there is a
gene for playing the piano, solving complex mathematical theorems,

I know that! Which is why your previous statement of a chess gene is so
very
curious.

It seems our Phil wants to argue only with a false version of my
position. Perhaps he lacks any genes for honesty.

REALLY ALL ANALOGY

Vaguer Kingston decided his chess-gene 'position' was really an analogy! or
what is he saying is not false about it? A direct inquiry brought abuse - so
this form of closer questioning is necessary to uncover his thought.

And perhaps Kingston's -natural talent- which, as the attentive reader will
note, has become decoupled from the analogy, was also an analogy?

While KIingston now assures us that height is gene-coded [ROFL] but not
chess, -natural talent- is reserved for another day of revelations. At least
in all these analogies he is saved from commenting on Alekhine's lack of
natural talent [ROFL].

There is no doubt that Kingston cannot speak without resorting to analogy
and not for any evident reason, save reason itself is not to hand, that if
he sent me 20 derogatory e-mails about chess writers, while reviewing for
the very same outfit who banned them, these too were presumably all
'analogy'.

Kingston is utilising some 2nd rate aspect of his intellect, and cannot own
his own opinions, except by means of reactively disqualifying those of
others - he is different than Brennan only in that he is vaguer but more
sure of himself.

What a doozy.

Phil Innes

On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

That's true - its a sociological factor to do with slavery, mainly of black
people, who were bred in a eugenics program to breed and be big

Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy the Greek's fate. Well, I
leave him to it.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 10, 8:22 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote
Sounds odd coming from him. While Alekhine did have strong natural
talent, it was probably not nearly as great as Capablanca's or
Reshevsky's, probably also below that of Lasker, maybe even below that
of Marshall, Janowski, Keres, Fine and a few other of his
contemporaries.

"Probably not nearly as great" but without saying why?

Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying
that the "why" lies mainly in the genes.

**What's this now? The other guys had a Chess gene?
**looks like a direct retort to this new idea you have of chess genes, why
don't you tell us more about your interesting idea?

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything with Phil Innes
is his habit of distortion and misrepresentation. In this case we see
him changing my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
idea of "chess genes," something I never said. That is typical Innes
intellectual dishonesty. In an effort to make my position clear enough
that even Phil may understand (but probably still won't), I will
explain at some length.

(Snip)

Taylor, the Nearly an IM 2450 is, to borrow a phrase from Edward
Winter, a historical analphabet. He doesn't even think there is
"evidence" Cambridge Springs 1904 took place. Why do you insist on
presenting pearls to such swine as Innes? Your original statement was
perfectly comprehensible.

MORE KRAP FROM KINGSTON

Arthur Dake and Arnold Denker spoke to the
question of Alekhine's natural talent in the
Denker-Parr book, "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories."

Denker partnered Alekhine in a couple of consultation
games: "I learned a lot about how the world champion
analyzed chess positions. Alekhine taught me to sit
on my hands and not to play the first move that came
to mind, no matter how good it looked. He examined
everything, whipping through an astonishing number of
variations. When I offered a suggestion, he took it
seriously and ran it through the wringer of detailed
analysis. And if my idea survived this logic
crunching, he cheerfully adopted it.

"'Analyze, analyze, analyze!' was Alekhine's
motto. Moreover, he did not confine himself to
logical moves. Any move, no matter how silly it
appeared, merited attention. And not infrequently, he
discovered sparkling ideas at the end of seemingly
awful continuations.

"My dear friend Arthur Dake, a great American
master of the 1930s, was quite chummy with Alekhine
even though Arthur nailed him repeatedly in rapid
transit play. Arthur believes that Alekhine's
distrust of intuitive moves and his penchant for
analyzing positions to death accounted for his
relative weakness in speed games. That makes sense
because otherwise there is no explanation for how the
vastly talented Alekhine could perform so poorly in
this variety of chess."

Most players bring a different frame of mind to
the chess board when playing fast chess as opposed to
the slower game. Denker and Dake, who played with
Alekhine and socialized with him, testify that he used
the same methods when playing rapid transit that he
did when analyzing during a tournament game. Of
course, Alekhine played more quickly in rapid transit;
but he was still trying to analyze something other
than obvious moves, which is a big no-no in speed play.

You don't analyze fantasy variations in five-minute
or rapid-transit and expect to achieve consistent
results. A world champion can play some fine speed
games this way, but he will also lose more than he ought.

As for Kingston-Brennan, their stuff is peeee-ti-full.


Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 10, 5:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything with Phil Innes
is his habit of distortion and misrepresentation. In this case we see
him changing my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
idea of "chess genes," something I never said.

11/9/06 which is just yesterday Taylor Kingston wrote

"Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying
that
the "why" lies mainly in the genes."

Which quote has nothing in it about a "chess gene."

Not another *nothing* - like book banning *nothing*?

Phil seems unable
to understand the difference between (A) the quite reasonable idea that
a specific skill may be affected by genetic factors related to it and
other similar skills,

And neither has medical science - the lat time I encountered this argument
was for a math-gene, not only that but an Asian math-gene. All sociological
arguments being rejected.

So besides what Kingston thinks Phil 'does not understand' what is his own
understanding of these fascinating ideas?

and (B) the implausible idea of a gene coded for
that exact specific skill.

Or any specific skill? Let's here more eugenic argument, then we will see if
I am as unable to understand as biologists.

To repeat my analogy,

ah! It was an analogy!

there is no doubt that height is affected by
genetic factors, and that height has considerable bearing on basketball
skills.

There is also no doubt that height is effected by diet, and Anglo Saxons eg,
were the same height as we were. Sugar also effects health. Only losuy diet
in the too-crowded middle-ages reduced the same people's height by over 6
inches.

That is not at all the same thing as claiming there is a
"basketball gene."

That's true - its a sociological factor to do with slavery, mainly of black
people, who were bred in a eugenics program to breed and be big

To make another analogy,

But not for my benefit! I don't need Beach Boys analogies to talk about
Alekhine or Lasker, or medical science. Kingston does, lacking what we call
any facts at all.

flying an airplane requires
good eyesight, quick reactions, eye-hand coordination, and other skills
that can be strongly affected by genetic factors. But again, this is
hardly claiming the existence of an airplane-flying gene.
Likewise, I have not claimed the existence of any "chess gene."

There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any more than there is a
gene for playing the piano, solving complex mathematical theorems,

I know that! Which is why your previous statement of a chess gene is so
very
curious.

It seems our Phil wants to argue only with a false version of my
position. Perhaps he lacks any genes for honesty.

REALLY ALL ANALOGY

Vaguer Kingston decided his chess-gene 'position' was really an analogy! or
what is he saying is not false about it? A direct inquiry brought abuse - so
this form of closer questioning is necessary to uncover his thought.

And perhaps Kingston's -natural talent- which, as the attentive reader will
note, has become decoupled from the analogy, was also an analogy?

While KIingston now assures us that height is gene-coded [ROFL] but not
chess, -natural talent- is reserved for another day of revelations. At least
in all these analogies he is saved from commenting on Alekhine's lack of
natural talent [ROFL].

There is no doubt that Kingston cannot speak without resorting to analogy
and not for any evident reason, save reason itself is not to hand, that if
he sent me 20 derogatory e-mails about chess writers, while reviewing for
the very same outfit who banned them, these too were presumably all
'analogy'.

Kingston is utilising some 2nd rate aspect of his intellect, and cannot own
his own opinions, except by means of reactively disqualifying those of
others - he is different than Brennan only in that he is vaguer but more
sure of himself.

What a doozy.

Phil Innes

The Historian wrote:

Speaking of "markedly different tone", I'm pleased that chess finally
broke into a thread dominated by Robtroll and Innes. Thank you, Taylor.


It seems to me that IM Innes was, in his usual
roundabout way, asking for substantiation of TK's
claim regarding who had more "natural talent". As
we have seen, nothing came of it other than some
brief scuffling between the two antagonists. As for
me, give me liberty... -- no, scratch that. As for me,
I would like to know exactly what this "natural talent"
consists in, as clearly separated from subjective
opinion. One such opinion is that Capablanca, for
example, never studied chess but simply was a
born (chess) genius -- which I find hard to believe.
IMO, those who pretend to have acheived greatness
without effort are usually pulling the wool over our
(very naive) eyes. In the old days, it seems that
folks had more time for such things as board games,
if for no other reason than the fact that HDTV had yet
to be invented. :D

One more thing I would like to know: why is Euwe
listed as among the best "hypermodern" players? I
have not studied many of his games, but the few I've
seen were nothing unusual, just rock-solid chess. I
think I would sooner list Alekhine among them before
Euwe.

-- help bot