As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games. As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.
The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(See http://tinyurl.com/yqpve7 for more details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm readers.

Taylor,

Thanks, I was keeping an eye peeled for the results of your research.

This one example, though, involving only drawing patterns by world
champions, doesn't shed much light on the general question of alleged
statistical support for some thesis to the effect that Black is OK.
Perhaps the point is that certain players, such as Steinitz and
Alekhine, played for a win with Black more frequently than others?

I have Adorjan's original Black is OK book and I enjoyed reading it.
So I'm curious about what he has to say in this one, though I buy few
chess books these days.

I did read the interview at Chessville, which turned out to be
interesting since Adorjan did most of the talking.

Larry T.



On Mar 20, 10:12 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games. As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.
The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(Seehttp://tinyurl.com/yqpve7for more details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm readers.

On Mar 20, 2:59 pm, "Larry Tapper" wrote:
Taylor,

Thanks, I was keeping an eye peeled for the results of your research.

This one example, though, involving only drawing patterns by world
champions, doesn't shed much light on the general question of alleged
statistical support for some thesis to the effect that Black is OK.
Perhaps the point is that certain players, such as Steinitz and
Alekhine, played for a win with Black more frequently than others?

I have Adorjan's original Black is OK book and I enjoyed reading it.
So I'm curious about what he has to say in this one, though I buy few
chess books these days.

I did read the interview at Chessville, which turned out to be
interesting since Adorjan did most of the talking.

Larry T.

There are a number of oddities in Adorjan's statistics and his
comments thereon. Chief among them is this, on pages 155-156:

"I was a little surprised, that the database contains more White
than BLACK games by the Champs in total ... in the case of Capablanca
and Alekhine [the percentage of games as Black] is below
35%!" (emphasis in original)

Frankly I, in turn, am a little surprised that Adorjan is a little
surprised. He seems unaware that the database surely contains a good
many games from simuls. In particular, Capablanca and Alekhine gave
many, many simuls - it was basically how they made a living. And
traditionally in simuls the grandmaster plays White, explaining the
preponderance of White games by Capa and AA, not to mention Steinitz,
Lasker, Euwe, and Fischer, who also gave many simuls. Such games are
not of much worth in evaluating the objective theoretical prospects of
Black versus White, since the discrepancy in strength between
opponents is usually so great.
Furthermore, there is a strong bias in statistics from simuls: the
games by far most likely to be preserved are the upsets. The GM may,
and usually does, win 90-98% of his games, but generally the only ones
that get recorded anywhere except some patzer's scorebook, and thus
survive to appear in databases decades later, are those where the
World Champion loses or draws against some local yokel. This rather
skews the stats unrealistically in Black's favor.
Adorjan does not even name the database he used. This is rather like
saying "According to a book, so-and-so is true." On top of that, he
seems to have taken no care to separate serious games between strong
equals, from simuls, consultation games, and other inconsequential
noise.
So aside from the fact that Innes completely misunderstood the
meaning of Adorjan's stats, I have great reluctance to grant these
particular stats much significance on the issue of whether "Black is
OK" or not.

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

As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games.

Wrong. I did present them, I didn't claim to. 'Claim to' is a Blairism. I
did present statistics on W Ch games! Not a good start!

As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.

As I pointed out two days ago, Kinsgston has not understood anything about
'the claimed' statistics even after reading 30 messages about them.

I hope Taylor Kingston has cited below any errors I made in reporting
Adorjan's numbers. But I hope the reader will also note that Kingston is
unable to find an 'all' in what I wrote, and forget to tell the reader that
he put the 'all' in. Since he can't cite any all, and now hides the fact
that it was him not me who put it there - in some ways, Kingston argues with
himself. BUT - it does have a happy ending!

Taylor Kingston, to resolve 'all' his 'issues' will also have to buy another
book! The forever! title already mentioned.

And then by misunderstanding something of what I wrote about that he can
then be puzzled about that too, and suggest I am trying to take over the
world.

Taylor Kinsgston at least finishes honestly, by saying I misrepresented
Adorjan's figures. Although, without actually reproducing all seven pages of
charts, as I already said, then by ommission it would not be possible to do
otherwise.

If Kingston has something more grin concise to say, that is not already
covered by previous responses, specifically on how I misled the public, I
bet Louis Blair can't find it! And if Louis can't find it, it must be true!

OTOH

I am glad that Taylor Kingston has again upped the quality of American Book
Reviewing by actually reading one.

Phil Innes

The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(See http://tinyurl.com/yqpve7 for more details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm readers.

On Mar 22, 8:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

oups.com...



As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games.

Wrong. I did present them, I didn't claim to. 'Claim to' is a Blairism. I
did present statistics on W Ch games! Not a good start!

As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.

As I pointed out two days ago, Kinsgston has not understood anything about
'the claimed' statistics even after reading 30 messages about them.

Phil, I understand Adorjan's numbers just fine, now that I see them
in context. The misunderstanding was entirely yours, giving them a
meaning and context Adorjan did not.

I hope Taylor Kingston has cited below any errors I made in reporting
Adorjan's numbers. But I hope the reader will also note that Kingston is
unable to find an 'all' in what I wrote, and forget to tell the reader that
he put the 'all' in. Since he can't cite any all, and now hides the fact
that it was him not me who put it there - in some ways, Kingston argues with
himself. BUT - it does have a happy ending!

Taylor Kingston, to resolve 'all' his 'issues' will also have to buy another
book! The forever! title already mentioned.

And then by misunderstanding something of what I wrote about that he can
then be puzzled about that too, and suggest I am trying to take over the
world.

Taylor Kinsgston at least finishes honestly, by saying I misrepresented
Adorjan's figures. Although, without actually reproducing all seven pages of
charts,

Phil, are you taking hallucinogens again? There are not "seven pages
of charts" in "Black Is Still OK!". The copy I got has charts only on
pages 68, 154, 155, 156, and 157. That's five pages, not seven. Please
tell us what pages the other two are on in your reality.
And really it's only three pages, since he simply represents the
data you referred to in three different ways: as straight numbers, as
a pie chart, and as a bar chart.

as I already said, then by ommission it would not be possible to do
otherwise.

If Kingston has something more grin concise to say, that is not already
covered by previous responses, specifically on how I misled the public, I
bet Louis Blair can't find it! And if Louis can't find it, it must be true!

Phil, have already pointed out your error in concise and full
detail. You're just being your usual chicken, evasive, water-muddying
self when it comes to admitting a mistake. No big deal, really -- it
wasn't that important a mistake. But I enjoy watching your ludicrous
attempts to extricate yourself. By trying to make it seem that your
molehill of a mistake was no mistake at all, you make a mountainous
fool of yourself.


OTOH

I am glad that Taylor Kingston has again upped the quality of American Book
Reviewing by actually reading one.

Phil Innes



The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(Seehttp://tinyurl.com/yqpve7for more details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm readers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 22, 8:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

oups.com...



As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games.

Wrong. I did present them, I didn't claim to. 'Claim to' is a Blairism. I
did present statistics on W Ch games! Not a good start!

As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.

As I pointed out two days ago, Kinsgston has not understood anything
about
'the claimed' statistics even after reading 30 messages about them.

Phil, I understand Adorjan's numbers just fine, now that I see them
in context. The misunderstanding was entirely yours, giving them a
meaning and context Adorjan did not.

Really? What we are dealing with is your understanding of whatever you think
I said, despite some 20 goes at finding that out.

I hope Taylor Kingston has cited below any errors I made in reporting
Adorjan's numbers. But I hope the reader will also note that Kingston is
unable to find an 'all' in what I wrote, and forget to tell the reader
that
he put the 'all' in. Since he can't cite any all, and now hides the fact
that it was him not me who put it there - in some ways, Kingston argues
with
himself. BUT - it does have a happy ending!

Taylor Kingston, to resolve 'all' his 'issues' will also have to buy
another
book! The forever! title already mentioned.

And then by misunderstanding something of what I wrote about that he can
then be puzzled about that too, and suggest I am trying to take over the
world.

Taylor Kinsgston at least finishes honestly, by saying I misrepresented
Adorjan's figures. Although, without actually reproducing all seven pages
of
charts,

Phil, are you taking hallucinogens again?

Everybody who disagree with you is.

There are not "seven pages
of charts" in "Black Is Still OK!".

Look at what I wrote = Not I but 2 books.

Its somewhere above in this very thread and I have mentioned it before, no
less than half a dozen times.

Meanwhile, how come you are fighting yourself? How come you duck your own
understanding of the issue as relevant, and how come you don't reply to the
'all' line above, and continue with the usual vague crap which has no other
basis than your own assumption.

If you are asking anything in this correspondance, what is it?

The copy I got has charts only on
pages 68, 154, 155, 156, and 157. That's five pages, not seven. Please
tell us what pages the other two are on in your reality.
And really it's only three pages, since he simply represents the
data you referred to in three different ways: as straight numbers, as
a pie chart, and as a bar chart.

as I already said, then by ommission it would not be possible to do
otherwise.

If Kingston has something more grin concise to say, that is not already
covered by previous responses, specifically on how I misled the public, I
bet Louis Blair can't find it! And if Louis can't find it, it must be
true!

Phil, have already pointed out your error in concise and full
detail.

Kingston is referring to his conciseness which he already wrote elsewhere -
and maybe he even did?

You're just being your usual chicken, evasive, water-muddying
self when it comes to admitting a mistake. No big deal, really -- it
wasn't that important a mistake.

Important enough if indeed it was a mistake for Kingston to initiate a bogus
statistics thread BEFORE reading the book, based on his insistance that he
understood me to say ALL, but which he now ignores, and pretends doesn't
exist.

If I seemed to have implyed all, then that IS an error of fact.

But I enjoy watching your ludicrous
attempts to extricate yourself. By trying to make it seem that your
molehill of a mistake was no mistake at all, you make a mountainous
fool of yourself.


OTOH

I am glad that Taylor Kingston has again upped the quality of American
Book
Reviewing by actually reading one.

OTOH !

In case anyone thinks I implied that Kingston understood the book he read,
or what I said about it - I did NOT want to make that assertion.

PI

Phil Innes



The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(Seehttp://tinyurl.com/yqpve7for more details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm
readers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 22, 10:51 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:31 am, "Chess One" wrote:





"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

roups.com...

As regular readers of this group are aware, there has been some
discussion here of a post last month by Phil Innes, that claimed to
present statistics on draw rates in world championship games.

Wrong. I did present them, I didn't claim to. 'Claim to' is a Blairism. I
did present statistics on W Ch games! Not a good start!

As I
pointed out then, these statistics were wildly inaccurate.

As I pointed out two days ago, Kinsgston has not understood anything about
'the claimed' statistics even after reading 30 messages about them.

Phil, I understand Adorjan's numbers just fine, now that I see them
in context. The misunderstanding was entirely yours, giving them a
meaning and context Adorjan did not.





I hope Taylor Kingston has cited below any errors I made in reporting
Adorjan's numbers. But I hope the reader will also note that Kingston is
unable to find an 'all' in what I wrote, and forget to tell the reader that
he put the 'all' in. Since he can't cite any all, and now hides the fact
that it was him not me who put it there - in some ways, Kingston argues with
himself. BUT - it does have a happy ending!

Taylor Kingston, to resolve 'all' his 'issues' will also have to buy another
book! The forever! title already mentioned.

And then by misunderstanding something of what I wrote about that he can
then be puzzled about that too, and suggest I am trying to take over the
world.

Taylor Kinsgston at least finishes honestly, by saying I misrepresented
Adorjan's figures. Although, without actually reproducing all seven pages of
charts,

Phil, are you taking hallucinogens again? There are not "seven pages
of charts" in "Black Is Still OK!". The copy I got has charts only on
pages 68, 154, 155, 156, and 157. That's five pages, not seven. Please
tell us what pages the other two are on in your reality.
And really it's only three pages, since he simply represents the
data you referred to in three different ways: as straight numbers, as
a pie chart, and as a bar chart.

LOL! I used to catch Sesame Street with my kids years ago. I remember
"The Count". Taylor reminds me of him.
"One" Page in the book, "Tow, two pages in the book!"



as I already said, then by ommission it would not be possible to do
otherwise.

If Kingston has something more grin concise to say, that is not already
covered by previous responses, specifically on how I misled the public, I
bet Louis Blair can't find it! And if Louis can't find it, it must be true!

Phil, have already pointed out your error in concise and full
detail. You're just being your usual chicken, evasive, water-muddying
self when it comes to admitting a mistake. No big deal, really -- it
wasn't that important a mistake. But I enjoy watching your ludicrous
attempts to extricate yourself. By trying to make it seem that your
molehill of a mistake was no mistake at all, you make a mountainous
fool of yourself.





OTOH

I am glad that Taylor Kingston has again upped the quality of American Book
Reviewing by actually reading one.

Phil Innes

The source Innes cited for these stats was "Black Is Still
OK" (Batsford, 2004) by GM Andras Adorjan. Curious as to whether the
bogus stats were the fault of Adorjan, or of Innes, I bought the book
to settle this mystery.
For readers wanting a quick summary, it's simple: Innes
misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's statistics. Those interested
in a fuller explanation may read on:

Here is what Innes posted on 10 February 2007:

Historically I have much data on WDL stats - in W Ch games, the
highest draw rates are archieved by Smyslov at 57.9% draws with black
and 50.3% draws with white - who is exceeded by Petrosian with 61.5%
draws with black and 49.0% draws with white.
The LOWEST draw rate appears to be Steinitz, with 21.7% draws with
black and 17.9% draws with white.
Of popular players:

Alekhine: 30.5% draws black, 24.3% draws white
Fischer: 36.9% draws black, 24.8% draws white
Kasparov, 47.3% draws black, 30.8% draws white

stats on World Champions is from Adorjan's
Black is still OK!/Batsford

*** end Innes excerpt ***

That I am quoting Innes correctly can be verified by reading his
original post he

http://tinyurl.com/2lyx5b

As I pointed in that thread the next day, the statistics Innes gave
were quite wrong. In world championship play, the correct draw
percentages a

Smyslov: 49.4% (not 57.9% w/ Black and 50.3% w/ White)
Petrosian: 65.2% (not 61.5% B, 49.0% W)
Steinitz: 27.6% (not 21.7% B, 17.9% W)
Alekhine: 52.14% (not 30.5% B, 24.3% W)
Fischer: 52.4% (not 36.9% B, 24.8% W)
Kasparov: 72.6% (not 47.3% B, 30.8% W)

(Seehttp://tinyurl.com/yqpve7formore details.)

Some of the differences are minor, but some are huge, e.g. Alekhine,
Fischer, and especially Kasparov. The gross error with Fischer is
particularly hard to understand - he played only one world title
match, the most famous match in chess history, on which over 400 books
have been written. One would think Innes would have at least one of
them to tell him the correct score (+7 -3 =11). In any case, not a
single player's statistics are correct.

Thus arose the question of how Innes got his bogus stats. There
seemed to be four main possibilities:

1. They were a complete fabrication by Innes (Phil does a lot of
this).
2. Innes miscopied Adorjan's figures (Phil is not a good typist).
3. Innes copied correctly, but Adorjan's figures are wrong.
4. Adorjan's figures are right, but they refer to something other
than world championship results; therefore Innes was wrong to say they
were draw rates "in W Ch games."

So, in an effort to solve this compelling mystery, I acquired the
book Innes named as his source, GM Andras Adorjan's "Black Is Still
OK." Here are my findings:

Of my four conjectures, #4 came closest. Adorjan _does_ present a
chart (in print almost unreadably tiny) showing the number of wins by
White, wins by Black, and draws, in all world title matches from 1886
to 1990, the total of which Adorjan gives as 755 games. (Adorjan's
figures are not quite accurate, but we'll disregard that for now.)
However, the stats Innes presented refer NOT to that chart, but to a
set of 23,362 games derived from an unnamed database. Adorjan says the
23,262 are ALL games on this database that involved World Champions
(plus Bronstein, a non-champion whom Adorjan includes for some
unstated reason).
Therefore Innes has misrepresented the meaning of Adorjan's figures.
This is not surprising; our Phil frequently misreads, or
misunderstands what he reads. This is entirely Innes' fault, because
Adorjan made quite clear what he was describing. The heading of that
section of the book (pages155-156) says in bold

"The World Champions' total(?) games"

followed immediately by the statement

"The number of the World Champion's total games in our database from
Steinitz to Kasparov is 23,362, of which 1,148 were played in
matches."

No doubt our Phil will claim it was obvious that this was what he
meant all along, but regulars of this newsgroup know better. In any
event, I am happy to have provided this clarification for rgcm readers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 22, 1:18 pm, "Rob" wrote:

LOL! I used to catch Sesame Street with my kids years ago. I remember
"The Count". Taylor reminds me of him.
"One" Page in the book, "Tow, two pages in the book!"

One can always "count" on Rob to jump in an cut
right to the heart of the matter, slashing away any
and all personal bias while cutting right to the chase
(or ad hominem, as the case may be).

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up, but GM
Adorjan himself was apparently working with bogus,
or partial stats. himself. In order to get meaningful
stuff out, you gotta put in complete, uncorrupted
data. 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 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:
On Mar 22, 1:18 pm, "Rob" wrote:





LOL! I used to catch Sesame Street with my kids years ago. I remember
"The Count". Taylor reminds me of him.
"One" Page in the book, "Tow, two pages in the book!"



One can always "count" on Rob to jump in an cut
right to the heart of the matter, slashing away any
and all personal bias while cutting right to the chase
(or ad hominem, as the case may be).



Three! Three pages in the book! Four! Four pages in the book!

Ad hominey? we cookin something bot?

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up, but GM
Adorjan himself was apparently working with bogus,
or partial stats. himself. In order to get meaningful
stuff out, you gotta put in complete, uncorrupted
data. 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 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.

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