On Apr 23, 7:01 am, David Richerby
wrote:

No, it's an historical fact. For example the Hannak biography, page
195, says "Finally, after long and fruitless efforts to come to
mutually satisfactory terms, Lasker threw quite a bombshell by
publishing a statement solemnly renouncing his title for good and
all." This was in 1920, I believe.

But did anyone take this seriously? In the eyes of the world, was it
any more legitimate for Lasker to say, ``I'm not World Champion any
mo Capablanca is'' than it would have been for Capa to say, ``He's
not World Champion any mo I am''?

These days world champions are not allowed to hand
off their titles, as they are the property of FIDE. Back
then, things were different, but still such a hand-off can
hardly be equated to earning the title in the traditional
way.


You're right, Capablanca definitely wanted to win the title the
right way, by beating Lasker. I was merely reporting the fact that
Lasker *had* resigned the title before them match, and so,
technically, Capa was *already* champion.

Capa was already champion in Lasker's opinion. I'm not sure anyone
else really agreed with him.

Becoming world champion requires a bit more than
becoming the strongest player in the eyes of any
one man -- even the reigning champ.

-- help bot

raylopez99 wrote:
Curious why you think Sonas formulae are flawed (if that's what you
meant).

That is what I meant. They're flawed because they assume that
inactivity results in weakening. Yet most players will take some time
off before an important match or tournament, both to rest and to
study. Sonas's formulae penalize them for doing this even though two
players who take a month off to play a private training match will
inevitably emerge stronger rather than weaker.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but it'll blow
your mind!

On Apr 24, 3:56 am, David Richerby
wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:
Curious why you think Sonas formulae are flawed (if that's what you
meant).

That is what I meant. They're flawed because they assume that
inactivity results in weakening. Yet most players will take some time
off before an important match or tournament, both to rest and to
study. Sonas's formulae penalize them for doing this even though two
players who take a month off to play a private training match will
inevitably emerge stronger rather than weaker.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Tool (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but it'll blow
your mind!

Thanks for that clarification Dave.

See also this article from late last year, which deserves a long hard
look, and which I've made into a seperate post, claiming that Capa,
Kramnik, Karpov and Kasparov (in that order) were the greatest chess
players ever:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

I was thinking of this article not the Sonas article when I posted in
this thread.

The above article makes sense to me, if you value "pure play", that
is, play the board, not the man, as opposed to a Tal psychological
tactic of playing the man, not the board, and winning that way.

RL

On Apr 23, 5:50 am, raylopez99 wrote:

bot, have you seen the articles by chess statistician Jeff Sonas on
the greatest champions ever? The research that 'backsolved' GW games
using computers to show which GMs made the fewest errors (both in
winning AND in losing games)? That showed Capa (and Lasker) and
Kasparov (and Karpov) and Fischer (and Petrosian) to be the greatest
players ever?

No, I haven't seen it.

Google it. Here,http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2409

I recently downloaded all four of these articles and am
just beginning to read the first of them. I noticed right
off the same flaw pointed out by David Richerby: the
loony assumption that inactivity equates to a loss in
playing strength.

At one time I became frustrated that my rating was
no longer increasing, despite considerable playing
activity. My solution was to stop playing so much and
instead, spend more time studying. The result was an
improvement, but one which did not show up as quickly
as I would have hoped in the rating numbers. (In fact,
it wasn't until 1971 that I was finally able to break the
2750 level... .) ;D

-- help bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Good Lord, bot, when it comes to ignorant rants, you've posted some
doozies, but I think this one may take the cake. Just about everything
you write below is nonsense, but especially foolish, not to say
insulting, is your characterization of Lasker as an "over-hyped
cowardly scumbag."
It's become painfully obvious that you post here not because you
have anything worth saying, you just like to hear yourself talk. I
apologize to the group for trying one last time take you seriously.


If there is anyone in this thread who cannot be taken
seriously, it is the man in his ivory tower who shouts
down ad hominem insults in place of *rational* commentary.

IMO, your equating GM Lasker's "interview" comments
with hard facts is proof enough of your hideously low
standards for evidence in support of your wobbly opinions.
Add to this your laughable comment regarding GM Lasker's
"savings", and there is nothing left to do but note your
hopeless ignorance and move on. [FYI: the man married
into money, and if anything, he squandered, rather than
saved the stuff.]

Much like the Evans ratpack, you seem over-eager to
attribute invented motives to others whose opinions do
not square perfectly with your own. OTOH, you quite
possibly do owe the group some kind of apology, but
not the one you think.

If you need to catch up further on your Lasker history,
just let me know. He was an interesting man, if a poor
world champion; and by poor I mean of course that he
failed to defend willingly against his worthy competitors,
not that he was a weak player -- just the opposite, in fact.

Here is a very brief summation of the points you took
exception to:

1. The "hype" would be such frequent comments as his
holding the title for 27 years. This gives the term "holding"
a whole new dimension. LOL

2. As for Mr. Lasker being a "cowardly scumbag", this was
shown out in his handling of the match negotiations with
Mr. Capablanca, wherein Mr. Lasker demanded odds, and
upon this condition being rejected, sneaked off with his
title to crawl back under some rock, I suppose. (In the
Disney movie, 101 Dalmations, Cruella Deville is so
described, and she never ducked anybody.)

Perhaps my comments are ungenerous, but then, what
has the man ever done to earn generosity from me? I call
'em as I see them, no holds barred.

-- help bot

On Apr 22, 5:39 am, raylopez99 wrote:

bot, have you seen the articles by chess statistician Jeff Sonas on
the greatest champions ever? The research that 'backsolved' GW games
using computers to show which GMs made the fewest errors (both in
winning AND in losing games)? That showed Capa (and Lasker) and
Kasparov (and Karpov) and Fischer (and Petrosian) to be the greatest
players ever?

I still haven't gotten to the back-solving part, but in addition
to the misguided assumption that a player ought to be
penalized for inactivity, the author, Jeff Sonas, seems to be
lacking in common sense. For instance, I just read his
assertion that he was hired by KasparovChess.com to --
get this -- place GM Kasparov's tournament success into
"proper historical context". Now, where I come from even
a child could see the conflict of interest in such a job; one
does not place things into proper historical context by
taking money from the subject, or anyone else, for that
matter. At one point, Mr. Sonas reveals that he was in
fact influenced directly by GM Kasparov o this project.

This also explains why the current articles are framed as
they are, not to discover "who" was the greatest or most
dominant player, but to determine if it was GM Kasparov,
or (chuckle) someone else. Objectivity just flies out the
window and apparently migrates South for the duration.

In fact, I noted a certain heavy bias when Mr. Sonas
refused to allow GM Steinitz to win just one of his many
categories over GM Fischer, calling a clear victory by the
former a sort of tie. The name Fischer pops up quite
frequently, while other big names are largely ignored --
playing to the audience, to what they want to hear.

Now, after declaring GM Kasparov clear victor in the best
tournament performance overall category, Mr. Sonas wants
to "refine" his methods to account for the fact that the vast
majority of top-category events have taken place recently.
You know, had he thought about this a few seconds sooner,
it would have served to call into question any sweeping
conclusions regarding GM Kasparov's stellar record, which
was based largely on -- you guessed it -- the number of
events won in top-category play! In the author's own words:
"...28 of the top 30 category tournaments...occurred within
the past twenty years."
By strange "coincidence", these are the very same years
when GK did his thing.

Mr. Sonas writes: "It is a historical curiosity that there has
never been a tournament that included all of the top ten
players in the world...". This is easy to explain; known only
to a handful of insiders at GetClub and RedHotPawn, I rarely
travel outside my home base, deep under Antarctica. ;D

"I think it is indisputable that Kasparov had the most dominant
tournament career of anyone in chess history." This statement
shows a surprising ignorance of the myriad claims to the
contrary, published over the years in the pages of chess
magazines like, say, Chess Life. How often have I read
similar claims about the career of GM Karpov, for instance,
noting how unconvincing was the evidence they listed in
view of GM Kasparov's results. Nevertheless, it most certainly
*is* disputable.

But here's the clincher: "[Gary Kasparov] ...in fact never lost a
match to any human until...". Why the need to hide his loss to
Deeper Blue? Such actions tell a tale in themselves. Add to
this the hocus-pocus of penalizing GM Lasker's chessmetrics
rating for mere inactivity, and we see that something truly is
amiss. Mr. Sonas shows a chart where it is quite obvious
that without this senseless penalty, GK would be threatened, if
not overwhelmed entirely, by GM Lasker for longest stretch as
#1. GM Lasker falls off in 1902, which is absurd. [I wasn't even
born until 1909. ;D]

The final proof of pro-Kasparov bias:
"For a stretch of 18.5 years, not a single other player even came
within 10 rating points of Kasparov on any of [my] monthly lists.
Nobody else in chess history has come remotely close to having
such a stretch of dominance like that, with Lasker managing 8.8
years".
Once again, the *only thing* saving GM Kasparov from GM
Lasker is the very peculiar aspect of Mr. Sonas' ratings formula,
which is designed to penalize Lasker's inactivity just the same
as if he had played poorly, rather than not at all. Take away Mr.
Sonas' loony penalty, and Gary Kasparov is seen to fall below
one of his many rivals -- here, GM Lasker -- on the chart. As for
the 10-point rating margin, this would seem to apply only to Mr.
Sonas' own peculiar ratings, not FIDE's. I seem to recall that at
some point, GM Karpov came that close, if not GM Ivanchuck or
GM Anand.

All these "coincidences", these over-reliances on peculiarities
in Mr. Sonas' chosen ratings formulae, reveal much about the
agenda of the author, but little about the objective merits of the
supposed contenders for greatest champion ever.

I have now concluded the first three articles, and will comment
on the fourth, the one regarding back-solving, later, after I read
it. [Yes, this is unusual for me.] :D

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 22, 5:39 am, raylopez99 wrote:

Now, after declaring GM Kasparov clear victor in the best
tournament performance overall category,

sure he did, as have others. i think the top 5 are kasparov, fischer,
karpov, alekhine and sopia polgar

Mr. Sonas wants
to "refine" his methods to account for the fact that the vast
majority of top-category events have taken place recently.
You know, had he thought about this a few seconds sooner,
it would have served to call into question any sweeping
conclusions regarding GM Kasparov's stellar record, which
was based largely on -- you guessed it -- the number of
events won in top-category play! In the author's own words:
"...28 of the top 30 category tournaments...occurred within
the past twenty years."
By strange "coincidence", these are the very same years
when GK did his thing.

(a) if the measure is by ELO, then the scale is not linear
(b) retrofitting ratings is a difficult task, especially since they are
hypothesised to be if the historic player were to be in the contemporary
scene they would not perform as perhaps 2600 level, but 2800 level, by
virtue of the suggestion that they would compass current theory et al., yet
this is a very problematic idea - as if to say the 'romantic' Morphy could
inculcate modern defensive technique a-la-Karpov.

That, IMO, is a psychological absurdity. A more recent example in just a
half-generation is Capablanca's comment on Alekhine's programmed study; 'if
that's chess, you can keep it!'


---------

But here's the clincher: "[Gary Kasparov] ...in fact never lost a
match to any human until...". Why the need to hide his loss to
Deeper Blue?

Since some people hold the not unreasoned point of view that Deeper Blue is
not a human.

Such actions tell a tale in themselves. Add to
this the hocus-pocus of penalizing GM Lasker's chessmetrics
rating for mere inactivity, and we see that something truly is
amiss. Mr. Sonas shows a chart where it is quite obvious
that without this senseless penalty, GK would be threatened, if
not overwhelmed entirely, by GM Lasker for longest stretch as
#1. GM Lasker falls off in 1902, which is absurd. [I wasn't even
born until 1909. ;D]

I should be interested to know the views of active players in these
newsgroups on the effect of activity and preparation. I ask GMs this
questions, and usually receive an unquantifiable answer, while yet
affirming, 'a lot!'

For myself a week or two of preparation, booking up, playing over games of
others, and also right physical preparation in exercises [therefore to be
able to concentrate and also relax, unfocuss, rather than obsess and go
blind!] - plus some tough sparring partners in practice games has boosted
rating as much as 150 points in subsequent play over its nominal level.

I don't know if a metaphor is necessary, but we would not expect an
out-of-practice 400-metre runner to do very well if 'inactive', no?
Therefore rating entropy occurs - an opposite idea to rating floors, where
you can be playing a nominal 2200 player whose performance level is 1900.

For these reasons, many of which are variables and could be assessed as or
more or less worth, but not of no worth, I cannot think Mr. Sonas is
employing any /necessary/ bias toward Kasparov, or against Lasker - though
the argument may he held that the bias-factors are over emphasisied, and
should be scored an minor rather than major factors.

Phil Innes

The final proof of pro-Kasparov bias:
"For a stretch of 18.5 years, not a single other player even came
within 10 rating points of Kasparov on any of [my] monthly lists.
Nobody else in chess history has come remotely close to having
such a stretch of dominance like that, with Lasker managing 8.8
years".
Once again, the *only thing* saving GM Kasparov from GM
Lasker is the very peculiar aspect of Mr. Sonas' ratings formula,
which is designed to penalize Lasker's inactivity just the same
as if he had played poorly, rather than not at all. Take away Mr.
Sonas' loony penalty, and Gary Kasparov is seen to fall below
one of his many rivals -- here, GM Lasker -- on the chart. As for
the 10-point rating margin, this would seem to apply only to Mr.
Sonas' own peculiar ratings, not FIDE's. I seem to recall that at
some point, GM Karpov came that close, if not GM Ivanchuck or
GM Anand.

All these "coincidences", these over-reliances on peculiarities
in Mr. Sonas' chosen ratings formulae, reveal much about the
agenda of the author, but little about the objective merits of the
supposed contenders for greatest champion ever.

I have now concluded the first three articles, and will comment
on the fourth, the one regarding back-solving, later, after I read
it. [Yes, this is unusual for me.] :D

-- help bot

On Apr 22, 9:53 pm, help bot wrote:

Whoa! If GM Lasker were physically incapacitated
while in Cuba, he would have been hospitalized there,
per common sense. Only a reasonably well man would
dare venture to cross the Atlantic back then -- or a darned
fool, or a man running from something.

The competitor's health state is not a black & white issue.
Someone may be in a proor shape at the beginning of
the event, then his/her health may get either worse or
better.

Lasker always had delicate health.

During the match he asked Capablanca for a break
and postponement. Capablanca refused and Lasker
resigned the match. For a contrast, Karpov tried to
**impose** a postponement on his terms. Campo
followed the Karpov's instruction but not quite :-)

After returning to Europe, Lasker was hospitalized
for months. His had a serious health condition.

***

I agree with Taylor that you make sense and are fun
to read only in the context of Sanny and his GetClub.
I wish you would diversify without losing quality.

Regards,

Wlod

On Apr 24, 7:34 pm, raylopez99 wrote:

Curious why you think Sonas formulae are flawed (if that's what you
meant).

That is what I meant. They're flawed because they assume that
inactivity results in weakening.

While further information is claimed to exist at the
Web site, this article itself does not claim that the
purpose of penalizing a player for inactivity is to
adjust for any assumed weakening. Instead, the
author simply stated that he wanted to reward
players for their activity, and he noted that otherwise
one could "sit on" a great performance, as with
FIDE ratings.

Now, if the author had studied chess history and
scientifically determined that inactivity was strongly
correlated with a certain weakening, we might be
able to accept this more easily. But as it is, we
can only note that it is illogical to pretend you are
trying to measure or estimate strength, while
introducing such measures which interfere with that
very goal.

I could speculate that early attempts to quantify
the data invariably resulted in favor of GM Lasker or
GM Fischer, so "adjustments" were made
accordingly to boost GM Kasparov into the desired
spot. The drawback (from one point of view) is that
along with him, GM Karpov was lifted to new
heights, due to his extraordinary playing activity.
This is merely a guess, of course, but it seems to
accord well with the facts.

-- help bot