Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:18 am, "help bot" wrote:
What about *the majority* of Euwe's games -- are they
classical, or hypermodern style?

TK: Perhaps you would like to undertake a statistical analysis of Euwe's
opening repertoire, and report the results here. I am quite open to
contrary data.

Help bot: I find it interesting that
you like to quote other writers, but are unwilling to back
up their claims with anything substantive.
I do not have any database of grandmaster games, nor
Chessbase or any of its rivals.

So then what sources of evidence *do* you have, Greg? You don't seem
to have any books, and now you don't have any databases. At best you
seem to have just dim memories of having read something somewhere.
You claim that quotes from respected historians are not "anything
substantive," yet you offer no alternative. Merely to denigrate my
sources while offering none in return is no better than John Cleese's
automatic gainsaying in the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch.
You have an unfortunate history of making claims based on nothing. I
have not forgotten the time you blared that I had slagged all of Edward
Lasker's books. I never did.

Personally, I recall Greg's inept arguments about Jacob Elson's playing
strength. Greg based his entire argument about Elson's strength on a
database game played by another player. That December 2004 thread also
included a debate over hypermodernism involving ... Taylor Kingston.

Your heart generally seems to be in the right place here -- you don't
buy much of Parr's, Innes', or Sloan's nonsense. But your head is not
always in your arguments.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
...or even
opportunity, which is a sociology.

"_A_ sociology"? Hmmm, when I got my degree in sociology, we just
referred to it as "sociology," with no preceding article, indefinite or
otherwise. And while "opportunity" was definitely a factor to be
considered in certain sociological situations, it did not itself
constitute "a sociology."

Innes also thinks it's proper to call a Latinist "a Latin." See below.
*******************
Innes:
As I understand him, Peter Groves is a Latin.

Dr. Peter Groves:
Well, I have a Belgian grandmother,

Innes:
Is that at all like a Dutch uncle?

Dr. Peter Groves:
I realise that your knowledge of English is somewhat rudimentary: we mean
by
"a Latin" someone whose native tongue is derived from Latin.

Innes:
Actually 'a Latin' is someone who has the language and is common as muck
parlance for the past 250 years.

Alan Jones:
That's a sense unknown to OED. Someone who "has the language" is a
Latinist,
particularly if he or she can write and perhaps speak it confidently.
OED
also has "Latiner" for that sense and for a student of Latin, but I've
never
seen it outside the dictionary.

Dr. David Webb:
It is generally futile to try to divine what Mr. Innes means by a
word, but I am guessing that he thinks that your academic specialty is
Latin. Mr. Innes seems to believe that you are a professional Latinist.
He appears to be blithely unaware that you hold a post in an English
department, that you are an Early Modern specialist, and that your Ph.D.
studies dealt with Shakespeare; perhaps he is also unaware that a great
many scholars know Latin regardless of their professional specialty.

**************
I think Phil knows as much about sociology as he does about Spanish,
or "Andean" as he calls it.

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

Even so, one would have first have to establish just what would prove
a player was or was not a hypermodern. Doing a quick check on CB's
MegaBase 2005 of the games of Richard Réti, considered one of the
foremost Hypermoderns,

Though in most people's estimation Reti was not quite as 'foremost' as
Nimzovitch, and the Nimzo was introduced in the 1920s.

In fact, it first made its entry into /serious/ play [as far as I can
determine] at the time of the Johner-Nimzovitch game, Dresen 1926, and then
attained much greater attention 3 years later in Carlsbad 1929, esp int he
game Bogolybov-Nimzo.

Capablanca Nimzo Kissingen 1928 displayed how befuddled Capa was in the
opeing and middle game, esp moves 16 and 17, and his earlier attempt to
gambit with 5. Bg5 did not work out well - if Nimzo hadn't played his own 2
successive bad moves at 30 and 31, the defensive would sure have become more
prominent more quickly.

Given this material, /development/ of Nimzo's ideas came after Lasker's
semi-retirement in 1925, and did not really catch fire until 1930. Nimzo
died 1935.

Phil Innes


I found him as White playing the Queen's Gambit
31 times and the Ruy López 37 times, but his own Réti System only 22
times. So does that make him a Classicist?

Did your search include games played before the Reti System was
introduced? That may be distorting the figures.

Below is a perfect example of how a dishonest troll behaves. I heas
nothing to contribute to an discussion so he goes to a discussion group
unrelated to the one in which he is posting in order to make a negative
remark about someone he does not like.

It is just that kind of pattern of behaivor that got Brennen caught in
my "Prozac" trap.

If you have nothing to contribute of a constructive nature, please
remain silent.

Rob

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
...or even
opportunity, which is a sociology.

"_A_ sociology"? Hmmm, when I got my degree in sociology, we just
referred to it as "sociology," with no preceding article, indefinite or
otherwise. And while "opportunity" was definitely a factor to be
considered in certain sociological situations, it did not itself
constitute "a sociology."

Innes also thinks it's proper to call a Latinist "a Latin." See below.
*******************
Innes:
As I understand him, Peter Groves is a Latin.

Dr. Peter Groves:
Well, I have a Belgian grandmother,

Innes:
Is that at all like a Dutch uncle?

Dr. Peter Groves:
I realise that your knowledge of English is somewhat rudimentary: we mean
by
"a Latin" someone whose native tongue is derived from Latin.

Innes:
Actually 'a Latin' is someone who has the language and is common as muck
parlance for the past 250 years.

Alan Jones:
That's a sense unknown to OED. Someone who "has the language" is a
Latinist,
particularly if he or she can write and perhaps speak it confidently.
OED
also has "Latiner" for that sense and for a student of Latin, but I've
never
seen it outside the dictionary.

Dr. David Webb:
It is generally futile to try to divine what Mr. Innes means by a
word, but I am guessing that he thinks that your academic specialty is
Latin. Mr. Innes seems to believe that you are a professional Latinist.
He appears to be blithely unaware that you hold a post in an English
department, that you are an Early Modern specialist, and that your Ph.D.
studies dealt with Shakespeare; perhaps he is also unaware that a great
many scholars know Latin regardless of their professional specialty.

**************
I think Phil knows as much about sociology as he does about Spanish,
or "Andean" as he calls it.

On Nov 13, 8:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Did you in your course always have to write
'sociological factor'?

When it was appropriate. "Sociology" refers to the science as a
whole, not to factors it takes into account. To call differential
opportunity "a sociology" is like calling atomic number "a chemistry"
or the diameter of a planet "an astronomy."

I see you called me a liar for /asking you/ about your chess gene, as if you
never mentioned the subject.

I have explicitly denied the existence of a "chess gene." I call you
a liar for attributing the term to me, instead of owning up to the fact
that it's your idea. For someone who insists on people "owning their
words," you seem particularly eager to deny ownership of these.

Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien. Then he would
discover that without the need for eugenic ideas,

Phil, no one but you has used the word "eugenic" in this thread.

Taylor, no one but you doesn't understand the name given to gene studies.
See the '~gen~' in there?

Our Phil continues to wallow in semantic confusion. The proper term
for the science of gene studies is *_genetics_*.
In contrast, Webster defines the term "eugenics" as "the study of
methods of protecting and improving the quality of the human race by
selective breeding." It is a term greatly discredited and disgraced by
its association with social, national, and racial prejudice, Nazism
being the most extreme example. It has no part in the question of
whether chess skill may depend in part on inborn potential.

a) de Groot's material was pioneering, and very important for chess, and
comprised both psychological and sociological appreciations.

b) Gardner's was a pioneering study in cognitive psychology, now well
accepted by the mainstream, and who utilised chess to illustrate an
important aspect of intelligence and memory.

c) Robt. Ornstein is a neuroscientist who has written particularly well
about hemispheric factors in the brain

Thank you for this information. Do any of their works discuss the
difference between innate abilities and acquired knowledge? Did they
conduct or cite any studies indicating that all people are either
basically equal in their potential chess ability, or that they vary
significantly? If not, they do not seem all that relevant to the issue
at hand.

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:58:28 GMT):
7 ... Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien.
7 Then he would discover that without the need for eugenic
7 ideas, there is differentiation among chess players.
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (12 Nov 2006 17:18:02 -0800):
7 Phil, no one but you has used the word "eugenic" in this
7 thread.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:26:37 GMT):

7 Taylor, no one but you doesn't understand the name
7 given to gene studies. See the '~gen~' in there?

_
Consulting an admittedly cheap dictionary I see that
"eugenics" is the "science of breeding strong human
beings."
_
As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who brought "eugenics"
into the discussion.
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... 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
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Snipped

The discussion on "inate talent" makes me wonder what ability
translated best to chess play?

Would one best be suited with a photographic memory or would an ability
to reason and logically think be a greater help? Perhaphs a creative
mind is advantageous in playing?

If we decide which traits are "learnable" and which are purely
attributable to some genetic annomaly we could decide the best ways to
develop grandmasters.

Rob

Moscow, 1935 - (Super - 18 to 20)

I think this may have been the tournament in question? Alekhine did not
participate in it due to the location of Moscow and his evident
hesitation over being able to safely return to his homeland.

Won by Mikhail Botvinnik and Salo Flohr.
3rd - Dr. Lasker, (12.5). He "aroused universal admiration." (Lasker
was 67 years old),
Capablanca - 4th (12-7)
Spielmann - 5th (11-8), Kan 6th (10 1/2-8 1/2),
Levenfish - 6th (10 1/2-8 1/2),
followed by in order:
Lillienthal
Ragozin,
Romanovsky,
Alatortsev,
Goglidze,
Rabinovich,
Ryumin,
Lisitisyn,
Bogatyrchuk,
Stahlberg,
Pirc,
Chekhover,
Vera Menchik, (1 1/2-17 1/2).

On Nov 13, 9:17 am, "Chess One" wrote:
[In] most people's estimation Reti was not quite as 'foremost' as
Nimzovitch, and the Nimzo was introduced in the 1920s.

Our Phil yet again demonstrates certain lacunae in his knowledge of
chess history. One finds the Nimzo-Indian Defense being played before
Nimzovitch was born. The first example I know of is Singleton-Caswell,
England, 1854.

In fact, it first made its entry into /serious/ play [as far as I can
determine] at the time of the Johner-Nimzovitch game, Dresen 1926,

In fact, it made its debut in serious play 44 years earlier, in 1882,
four years before Nimzovitch was born:

Steinitz,William - Englisch,Berthold [E33] Vienna16.06.1882: 1.d4 e6
2.c4 Bb4+ 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Qb3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d5 6.e3 0-0 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Qxc3 Ne7
9.Bd3 b6 10.0-0 a5 11.b3 Ba6 12.Nd2 Rc8 13.Rd1 c5 14.dxc5 Rxc5 15.Bb2
dxc4 16.Nxc4 Qc7 17.Qd2 Ng4 18.f4 Bxc4 19.bxc4 Nf5 20.Bd4 Christiaan
Bijl: Das II. Internationale Schachmeisterturnier Wien 1882, p. 358
½-½

Other early instances include Englisch-Blackburne, London 1883, and
Englisch-Noa, Frankfurt 1887. As for its first use by Nimzovitch
himself, I think even Phil will agree this antedates 1926:

Janowski D. - Nimzowitsch A., St. Petersburg 1914: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. Nf3 Bxc3 7. bxc3 d6 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9. e4
e5 10. O-O O-O 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bd2 Re8 13. Rae1 Nh7 14. h3 Nhf8 15. Nh2
Ne6 16. Be3 c5 17. d5 Nf4 18. Be2 Nf8 19. Bg4 Bc8 20. Qd2 Ba6 21. g3
N4g6 22. Be2 Nh7 23. h4 Nf6 24. Bd3 Rb8 25. Qe2 Rb7 26. Bc1 Rbe7 27.
Kh1 Bc8 28. Rg1 Kf8 29. h5 Nh8 30. g4 Nh7 31. Bc2 Rb7 32. f4 f6 33.
fxe5 dxe5 34. Nf3 Nf7 35. Ref1 Kg8 36. Nh4 Nd6 37. Nf5 Bxf5 38. gxf5
Ng5 39. Bxg5 hxg5 40. Ba4 Rf8 41. Bc6 Rb8 42. a4 Kf7 43. Kg2 Rh8 44.
Rh1 Rh6 45. Ra1 Qc7 46. Kf2 Rbh8 47. Ke3 Kg8 48. Kd3 Qf7 49. a5 Rxh5
50. Rxh5 Rxh5 51. axb6 Rh3 52. Kc2 axb6 53. Ra8 Kh7 54. Rd8 Qa7 55. Ra8
Qf7 56. Kb3 Qh5 57. Qxh5 Rxh5 58. Be8 Nxe8 59. Rxe8 Rh2 60. Ra8 g4 61.
Ra1 Kh6 62. Ka4 Kg5 63. Kb5 Kf4 64. Rg1 Kxe4 65. Rxg4 Kxf5 66. Rxg7 Rb2
67. Kc6 e4 68. d6 Rd2 69. d7 e3 70. Kxb6 e2 71. Re7 Rxd7 72. Rxe2 Rd3
73. Rc2 Rd8 74. Rc1 Rb8 75. Kc7 Re8 76. Kd6 Rd8 77. Kxc5 Rc8 78. Kd6
Rxc4 79. Kd5 Rc8 80. c4 Rd8 81. Kc6 Kg4 82. Rg1 Kh3 83. c5 f5 84. Kc7
Rf8 85. c6 f4 [½:½]

We find Alekhine playing it in the same event. All told, CB Megabase
2005 shows 39 pre-1926 Nimzo-Indian games. Besides the above game,
Nimzovitch himself played it also against Brinckmann at Kolding 1923,
Opocensky at Marienbad 1925, and Bogolyubov at Breslau 1925. Other
prominent masters playing it in the years 1914-1925 included Alekhine,
Saemisch, Teichmann, Bogolyubov, Maroczy, Gruenfeld, Romanovsky,
Zubarev, Colle, Rabinovitch, Selesniev, Przepiorka, and P. Johner.

Given this material, /development/ of Nimzo's ideas came after Lasker's
semi-retirement in 1925, and did not really catch fire until 1930. Nimzo
died 1935.

On the contrary, the available evidence seems to indicate the main
ideas of the Nimzo-Indian were developed well before 1925. By 1928, it
had become so mainstream that even Tarrasch and Capablanca were playing
it.

Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:26:37 GMT):

7 ... I see you called me a liar for /asking you/ about your
7 chess gene, as if you never mentioned the subject. ...

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (13 Nov 2006 08:29:44 -0800):
7 ... I have explicitly denied the existence of a "chess gene."
7 I call you a liar for attributing the term to me, instead of
7 owning up to the fact that it's your idea. For someone who
7 insists on people "owning their words," you seem
7 particularly eager to deny ownership of these. ...

_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"... 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, ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 11:28:22 -0800)
_
"'Probably not nearly as great' but without
saying why? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
09 Nov 2006 21:38:15 GMT)
_
"Since natural talent by definition is inborn,
it goes without saying that the 'why' lies
mainly in the genes. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 14:22:23 -0800)
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... 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. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(10 Nov 2006 13:01:10 -0800)
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)