On Mar 22, 11:45 pm, "help bot" wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:23 pm, "Rob" wrote:

Ad hominey? we cookin something bot?

Another interesting way to approach the subject of
variance in results between White and Black would
be a thoughtful consideration of annotated games.


As you stste below, I am now nor have I or shall I ever have a chess
title. As a US citizen I cannot hold a Royal Title. I would also shun
a title as it means nothing outside of the small realm of people who
even know what it would be.


Country fried ham steak, red eye gravy three eggs over easy and good
Jamacian Blue Mountain Cofffee... Now do you "Smellllllllllll , what
tha' Rob is cookin?"


Rob

For instance, if, in a game between FM Mitchell and
IM Innes, the former were to reflect that after 1e4 d5
he would gladly accept a draw by repetition after...
[patented forcing line omitted] on account of his
IMness' higher rating (and title!), we might chalk
up a mark for supposed respect for the opponent.





By sharp contrast, were the FM Rob Mitchell to
say instead that he found the possibility of such
a quick draw acceptable on account of it nixing
one game while leaving the other -- AS WHITE --
to decide their mini-match, we could chalk one
up to a decided preference for the presumed
superior winning chances of the player who has
the White pieces.

Of course, traditionalists will insist we ignore
such comments on a technicality; they will point
out that neither RM nor PI really has any title or
high rating whatsoever, but that is beside the point.
We might just as easily look over the game
annotations of real-titled players, such as GM
Fischer or IM Ftakniktckk (sp? --whatever!).

The idea is that the truth of the matter is not
necessarily to be found only in dry statistics, but also
in the revelations of the great players themselves, as
plainly evinced in their writings. Many of these great
players have, fortunately for us, left a legacy of notes
in plain English; and even those who write in some
strangely bizarre dialect, such as IM Innes for
instance, can sometimes be translated to a certain
extent. I don't wish to be perceived as a statistics
monger on account of my frequent references thereto;
it is only because of the inherent immunity to personal
bias that I so often refer to such things, just as I might
perhaps mention broccoli (yuck) when talking about
nutritious foods, while leaving out any mention of grits.

-- cook bot

On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up,

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games, and that therefore they should have been understood to
represent only *_some_* world championship games, is worse than his
original error.
The stats he gave in fact _do_ represent *_ALL_* games ever played
in ALL world championship matches 1886-1990, *_plus_* ALL THE OTHER
GAMES those world champions ever played, insofar as they were included
on Adorjan's unnamed database. This is very clearly stated by Adorjan,
but apparently misunderstood by Innes, as happens so often.

but GM
Adorjan himself was apparently working with bogus,
or partial stats. himself.

There is some definite systematic bias in Adorjan's data. Earlier I
noted Adorjan's surprise that in his database there were more games
where the world champions played White than Black. In particular, he
seemed puzzled that for Capablanca and Alekhine, games as Black were
less than 35% of their totals. I surmised that his was due to the many
simultaneous exhibitions JRC and AA gave, in which they would usually
play White on all boards.
Checking ChessBase 2005, I've confirmed that this is true. It has
literally hundreds of simul games for both JRC and AA. Whatever
database Adorjan used (he didn't say), it's likely it too has
hundereds of simul games. I would submit that these have no place in
any serious attempt to determine whether "Black is OK" or not.
If all or most of a simul's games are preserved, then we have the GM
winning 90+% and White looking invincible, due to the low strength of
those playing Black. If only a few games are preserved, these tend
overwhelmingly to be the upsets, where a relative patzer manages to
draw or beat the GM, producing a sampling error in Black's favor. By
no means can we assume that these two biases cancel each other out
over the full database.

In order to get meaningful
stuff out, you gotta put in complete, uncorrupted
data.

What I would submit is that data that causes distortion must be
weeded out. Adorjan should limit his sample to serious games between
strong masters, and avoid games that are like a wrestling match
between Hulk Hogan and Pee Wee Herman.

And what is even more important is this:
you don't start off with a theory that Black is OK
and THEN try and justify it using statistics. Duh!

You start off with (complete) statistics, and from
these you try to extrapolate meaning -- not the
other way around. The meaning should flow *from*
the source, like a river, to whatever sea is in its
path. And always downhill, going with the data,
not working against it to help any pet theory.

-- raft floating bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up,

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games,

Kingston - it was yYOUR 'excuse' to attack that YOU inserted all - and as I
wrote - you will insist on your own DUMBTH. That's all there is to it - and
you have fallen out with everyone on the same basis. You were so predictable
that we had bets on how you would present yourself )))

and that therefore they should have been understood to
represent only *_some_* world championship games, is worse than his
original error.
The stats he gave in fact _do_ represent *_ALL_* games ever played
in ALL world championship matches 1886-1990, *_plus_* ALL THE OTHER
GAMES those world champions ever played, insofar as they were included
on Adorjan's unnamed database. This is very clearly stated by Adorjan,
but apparently misunderstood by Innes, as happens so often.

"Apparently" another suppostion like 'all'. Is there no end to the the
fruitcase reviewer who after 20+ messages to clarify whatever his
understanding is with anyone else, can still offer 'apparently'. ))

So, what is your point Kingston? Does it have to do with your understanding,
with my representation of Adorjan, or with Adorjan's representation. Surely
to God you can't continue to be vague so long? Do you actually have a point
you can state in a few sentences? ROFL

What the hell is it?

Phil Innes

but GM
Adorjan himself was apparently working with bogus,
or partial stats. himself.

There is some definite systematic bias in Adorjan's data. Earlier I
noted Adorjan's surprise that in his database there were more games
where the world champions played White than Black. In particular, he
seemed puzzled that for Capablanca and Alekhine, games as Black were
less than 35% of their totals. I surmised that his was due to the many
simultaneous exhibitions JRC and AA gave, in which they would usually
play White on all boards.
Checking ChessBase 2005, I've confirmed that this is true. It has
literally hundreds of simul games for both JRC and AA. Whatever
database Adorjan used (he didn't say), it's likely it too has
hundereds of simul games. I would submit that these have no place in
any serious attempt to determine whether "Black is OK" or not.
If all or most of a simul's games are preserved, then we have the GM
winning 90+% and White looking invincible, due to the low strength of
those playing Black. If only a few games are preserved, these tend
overwhelmingly to be the upsets, where a relative patzer manages to
draw or beat the GM, producing a sampling error in Black's favor. By
no means can we assume that these two biases cancel each other out
over the full database.

In order to get meaningful
stuff out, you gotta put in complete, uncorrupted
data.

What I would submit is that data that causes distortion must be
weeded out. Adorjan should limit his sample to serious games between
strong masters, and avoid games that are like a wrestling match
between Hulk Hogan and Pee Wee Herman.

And what is even more important is this:
you don't start off with a theory that Black is OK
and THEN try and justify it using statistics. Duh!

You start off with (complete) statistics, and from
these you try to extrapolate meaning -- not the
other way around. The meaning should flow *from*
the source, like a river, to whatever sea is in its
path. And always downhill, going with the data,
not working against it to help any pet theory.

-- raft floating bot

On Mar 23, 3:17 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up,

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games,

Kingston - it was yYOUR 'excuse' to attack that YOU inserted all - and as I
wrote - you will insist on your own DUMBTH. That's all there is to it - and
you have fallen out with everyone on the same basis. You were so predictable
that we had bets on how you would present yourself )))

and that therefore they should have been understood to
represent only *_some_* world championship games, is worse than his
original error.
The stats he gave in fact _do_ represent *_ALL_* games ever played
in ALL world championship matches 1886-1990, *_plus_* ALL THE OTHER
GAMES those world champions ever played, insofar as they were included
on Adorjan's unnamed database. This is very clearly stated by Adorjan,
but apparently misunderstood by Innes, as happens so often.

"Apparently" another suppostion like 'all'. Is there no end to the the
fruitcase reviewer who after 20+ messages to clarify whatever his
understanding is with anyone else, can still offer 'apparently'. ))

So, what is your point Kingston? Does it have to do with your understanding,
with my representation of Adorjan, or with Adorjan's representation. Surely
to God you can't continue to be vague so long? Do you actually have a point
you can state in a few sentences? ROFL

What the hell is it?

(sigh) Phil, everyone else reading this already knows my point. You,
however, rarely if ever understand a point even when it's a foot long,
sharp as a tack, and you sit right on it.

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:FBWMh.33$J21.13@trndny03...

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up,

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games,

Sorry to respond more on my own comment: But this has to be the best joke of
the year so far. Because, says Kingston, I never said 'all' W Ch games,
there is some implication for him that I was cheating, as if to say, he
inferred for his own reasons I said 'all', and this is to represent 'bogus'
statistics.

---
BUT! as of his latest writing I see he now sort of vaguely attacks Adorjan -
and I suggest that he write him directly - and I will join in! using this
introduction to inform Adorjan of his grave error. Inter Alia, I hope he
will forward my greetings to the sausage-eating peoples of central Europe.

Truly it is said: Taylor Kingston to Chess History , is as the Beach Boys
are to Kafka.

May he also say this to Jocba, who will no doubt reply in his own terms to
Mr. Kingston's appreciations, and my own false representation of the
Hungarian ... ~ hang on ~ another thought - tell Adorjan I still wait an
answer to his /own/ contribution to Aki Magyar 1956, [from his favorite
Celt!] I want to read it.

ha kenyeret eszed

se e mu tamogataoikent hozzajararulni ahhoz,
hogy 1956 dicsosege tovabboroklodjek
gyermekeink es unokaink sziveben!


Is fearr sgios cos bharr gnimh ghlain
Na fos agus sgios meanman;
mairadh sgios meanman go brath:
cha mhair sgios cos acht aontrath.

And tell the son of a bitch that this my language is a much older one than
his

Tired feet after great achievements are better
...
Weariness of the spirit lasts forever
...

Tell him that.

Gus an ginear mi 'm phàiste

Phil Innes

On Mar 23, 3:45 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Is fearr sgios cos bharr gnimh ghlain
Na fos agus sgios meanman;
mairadh sgios meanman go brath:
cha mhair sgios cos acht aontrath.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafth Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Gus an ginear mi 'm phàiste

Grundig blaupunkt luger frug
Watusi snarf wazoo
Nixon Dirksen nasahist
Rebozo boogaloo

Dear Andras Adorjan,

Permit me to introduce you to Mr. Taylor Kingston, a Californian, who
resents the false way he understands I represented statistics in your
titles, Black Sucks, and also Sucks Forever!

I hope you will both get on together, since Mr. Kingston was once a Great
reviewer of chess books for Chesscafe, and you will both conclude perhaps
that I am a villain, so that Mr. Kingston can publish his reply in the
newsgroups where he takes issue with me.

I leave it to you both to come to this or whatever conclusion, and the
essential honesty of Mr Kingston to repeat what you yourself have to say to
the public. It is not necessary to copy me your correspondance together,
even though I act in an unlikeable way in the public message below.

Under no circumstances should you copy this message to Mr. Edward Winter,
since he will not understand the last comment of all, which has to do with
the faith/insight of children.

Cordially, Phil Innes

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:FBWMh.33$J21.13@trndny03...

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up,

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games,

Sorry to respond more on my own comment: But this has to be the best joke of
the year so far. Because, says Kingston, I never said 'all' W Ch games,
there is some implication for him that I was cheating, as if to say, he
inferred for his own reasons I said 'all', and this is to represent 'bogus'
statistics.

---
BUT! as of his latest writing I see he now sort of vaguely attacks Adorjan -
and I suggest that he write him directly - and I will join in! using this
introduction to inform Adorjan of his grave error. Inter Alia, I hope he
will forward my greetings to the sausage-eating peoples of central Europe.

Truly it is said: Taylor Kingston is to Chess History , as the Beach Boys
are to Kafka.

May he also say this to Jocba, who will no doubt reply in his own terms to
Mr. Kingston's appreciations, and my own false representation of the
Hungarian ... ~ hang on ~ another thought - tell Adorjan I still wait an
answer to his /own/ contribution to Aki Magyar 1956, [from his favorite
Celt!] I want to read it.

ha kenyeret eszed

se e mu tamogataoikent hozzajararulni ahhoz,
hogy 1956 dicsosege tovabboroklodjek
gyermekeink es unokaink sziveben!


Is fearr sgios cos bharr gnimh ghlain
Na fos agus sgios meanman;
mairadh sgios meanman go brath:
cha mhair sgios cos acht aontrath.

And tell the son of a bitch that this my language is a much older one than
his

Tired feet after great achievements are better
...
Weariness of the spirit lasts forever
...

Tell him that.

Gus an ginear mi 'm phàiste

Phil Innes

On Mar 23, 7:32 am, "Rob" wrote:

As you stste below, I am now nor have I or shall I ever have a chess
title.

Ah, but this ducks the real question: ARE YOU OR ARE
YOU NOT (yes, I know I'm shouting like a lunatic) A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?


As a US citizen I cannot hold a Royal Title. I would also shun
a title as it means nothing outside of the small realm of people who
even know what it would be.

Now wait a second. Have you never heard of the
process of amending the Constitution? Look, if we
want to elect the Governator as our President, all
we gotta do is make a teeny, tiny amendment and
POW -- he's on the ballot! By the same process,
even you could be anointed a "Sir" or a "Lord" or
what have you. (The the two of you fight it out with
Conan style swords and the winner gets the job --
sound fair enough? Oh, BTW, after I pick up your
head from the bottom of the steps how do you wish
to be buried?)

-- Conan bot

On Mar 23, 4:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

se e mu tamogataoikent hozzajararulni ahhoz,
hogy 1956 dicsosege tovabboroklodjek
gyermekeink es unokaink sziveben!

Ash nazg durbatuluk
Ash nazg gimbatul
Ash nazg thrakatuluk
Agh burzum ishi krimpatul

And tell the son of a bitch that this my language is a much older one than
his
Gus an ginear mi 'm phàiste

Nom goopa nar del yummo, nov schmoz ka pop.

On Mar 23, 1:37 pm, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games, and that therefore they should have been understood to
represent only *_some_* world championship games, is worse than his
original error.
The stats he gave in fact _do_ represent *_ALL_* games ever played
in ALL world championship matches 1886-1990, *_plus_* ALL THE OTHER
GAMES those world champions ever played, insofar as they were included
on Adorjan's unnamed database. This is very clearly stated by Adorjan,
but apparently misunderstood by Innes, as happens so often.

IM Innes is quite insane, and as such he is immune from
any and all responsibility for his actions, inactions, or
commentaries on said actions, inactions, or other items I
may have left out. See Wikipedia's article on insanity and
chess: "The Morphy Syndrome". You see, it's a bit like
bankruptcy in that once you file, you can no longer be held
accountable for past debts. In IM Innes' case, he went
cuckoo many years ago, and thus he is retroactively
exempt. (Note: this in no way means he cannot still be
ridiculed, however.)

-- legal bot