The World's longest running chess event [83rd edition] has this year one of
the strongest ever line-ups ...

GM Malakhatko Russia 2603
GM Chatalbashev Bulgaria 2581
GM V Georgiev Macedonia 2576
GM Mamedov Azerbaijan 2575
GM Jones England 2567
GM Neverov Ukraine 2558
GM Hebden England 2542
GM Conquest 2540
GM Tahirov Azerbaijan 2540
GM Pert England 2539
GM Pavlovic Serbia 2536
GM Howell England 2527
GM Bindrich Germany 2512
GM Haslinger England 2502
GM Lalic Croatia 2500
GM Flear England 2493
GM Gormally England 2484
IM Williams England 2475

The last named has a strong chance of gaining another GM norm, and his
title, says Malcolm Pein.

Of course, it is idle but irresistible speculation to compare this crew with
the 1895 one, to say if they were of any equivalent strength?

Phil Innes

On Dec 28, 8:09*am, "Chess One" wrote:
The World's longest running chess event [83rd edition] has this year one of
the strongest ever line-ups ...

GM Malakhatko Russia 2603
GM Chatalbashev Bulgaria 2581
GM V Georgiev Macedonia 2576
GM Mamedov Azerbaijan 2575
GM Jones England 2567
GM Neverov Ukraine 2558
GM Hebden England 2542
GM Conquest 2540
GM Tahirov Azerbaijan 2540
GM Pert England 2539
GM Pavlovic Serbia 2536
GM Howell England 2527
GM Bindrich Germany 2512
GM Haslinger England 2502
GM Lalic Croatia 2500
GM Flear England 2493
GM Gormally England 2484
IM Williams England 2475

The last named has a strong chance of gaining another GM norm, and his
title, says Malcolm Pein.

Of course, it is idle but irresistible speculation to compare this crew with
the 1895 one, to say if they were of any equivalent strength?

Indeed, both idle yet irresistible, Phil. For what it's worth, here
are the contestants at Hastings 1895, listed in order of finish, with
their nationalities and their estimated 5-year peak Elo rating, as
given in Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present" (Arco
1978):

Pillsbury USA 2630
Chigorin Russia 2600
Lasker Germany 2720
Tarrasch Germany 2610
Steinitz USA 2650
Schiffers Russia 2490
Bardeleben Germany 2510
Teichmann Germany 2570
Schlechter Austria 2600
Blackburne England 2570
Walbrodt England 2530
Burn England 2530
Janowski France 2570
Mason USA 2530
Bird England 2440
Gunsberg England 2560
Albin Romania 2450
Marco Austria 2520
Pollock England 2400
Tinsley England n/a
Mieses Germany 2490
Vergani Italy n/a

It would probably be unwise to use these ratings as absolutes
directly comparable to the FIDE ratings of today's players. What
definitely can be said is that the 1895 tournament had many of the
world's very best. With Lasker and Steinitz it had the current and
former world champion, and Tarrasch, Chigorin, Schlechter, Gunsberg
and Janowski all had or would eventually play for the title.
Blackburne, Mason and Teichmann had all been or would be among the
world's top ten around that time, Pillsbury leaped into the top 5 with
his win, and Janowski would soon reach that level.
I don't see anyone of comparable relative stature in this year's
event; none of these ratings look like even top 20 or even top 50
level now. How, say, Lasker in his prime would do today, or how, say,
today's Malakhatko would do back in 1895 is of course grist for
endless speculation.

Cuts

GM Malakhatko Russia 2603
GM Chatalbashev Bulgaria 2581
GM V Georgiev Macedonia 2576
GM Mamedov Azerbaijan 2575
GM Jones England 2567
GM Neverov Ukraine 2558
GM Hebden England 2542
GM Conquest 2540
GM Tahirov Azerbaijan 2540
GM Pert England 2539
GM Pavlovic Serbia 2536
GM Howell England 2527
GM Bindrich Germany 2512
GM Haslinger England 2502
GM Lalic Croatia 2500
GM Flear England 2493
GM Gormally England 2484
IM Williams England 2475

Cuts to 1895

Pillsbury USA 2630
Chigorin Russia 2600
Lasker Germany 2720
Tarrasch Germany 2610
Steinitz USA 2650
Schiffers Russia 2490
Bardeleben Germany 2510
Teichmann Germany 2570
Schlechter Austria 2600
Blackburne England 2570
Walbrodt England 2530
Burn England 2530
Janowski France 2570
Mason USA 2530
Bird England 2440
Gunsberg England 2560
Albin Romania 2450
Marco Austria 2520
Pollock England 2400
Tinsley England n/a
Mieses Germany 2490
Vergani Italy n/a


Cuts I don't see anyone of comparable relative stature in this year's
event; none of these ratings look like even top 20 or even top 50
level now. How, say, Lasker in his prime would do today, or how, say,
today's Malakhatko would do back in 1895 is of course grist for
endless speculation.

Well, that is ever the subject of retrofitting ratings - are they really
equivalents? True, Lasker is refitted at 2720, 120 points clear of the
2007/8 rating leader - but I personally don't think this means that Lasker
would be equivalent, and that modern players contain so much more knowledge,
technique et al, that /on the same scale/ they would rate no more than 2500
with today's players.

Incidentally, I have a tournament book [game scores, photos, analysis, with
a forward by Mark Taimanov] of the 1895, in Russian, with pictures never
before published in the West. I asked Stewart Reubin who, if anyone, had an
archive of the event? He didn't know of any central source.

I open the book at random and see game 190 is Marco-Mason which opened 1 e4
g6, a game which went 65 moves, and where black erred on move 21 annotates
MT, with c4?? instead of 21 ... f5, and again at 26 with Qb5-b3? where he
suggests instead Bh6.

As an illustration of some of the original players, and of opening 'finesse'
we are still in the age of romance. Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the denouement
at 46.

Of course, Bird Lasker famously opened 1. f4 e5, just like the game I posted
here recently though Lasker preferred 4... f7-f5 0-1 & 34 moves. Pollack
Vergani also begins eccenticaly with 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 Nf3 e5 and black lost
in 23.

So, I think, if only on the quality of the openings there is a great
difference then and now, but the number of superior lines that MT
contributes also address the technique difference to such large degree I am
not sure any of the orginals would finish above any of the current
participants



Phil Innes

On Dec 30, 7:34*am, "Chess One" wrote:
Cuts





GM Malakhatko Russia 2603
GM Chatalbashev Bulgaria 2581
GM V Georgiev Macedonia 2576
GM Mamedov Azerbaijan 2575
GM Jones England 2567
GM Neverov Ukraine 2558
GM Hebden England 2542
GM Conquest 2540
GM Tahirov Azerbaijan 2540
GM Pert England 2539
GM Pavlovic Serbia 2536
GM Howell England 2527
GM Bindrich Germany 2512
GM Haslinger England 2502
GM Lalic Croatia 2500
GM Flear England 2493
GM Gormally England 2484
IM Williams England 2475

Cuts to 1895

Pillsbury * * *USA * * * * *2630
Chigorin * * * Russia * * 2600
Lasker * * * * Germany *2720
Tarrasch * * Germany *2610
Steinitz * * * *USA * * * * 2650
Schiffers * * *Russia * * 2490
Bardeleben *Germany *2510
Teichmann *Germany *2570
Schlechter * Austria * * 2600
Blackburne *England * *2570
Walbrodt * * England * *2530
Burn * * * * * *England * *2530
Janowski * * France * * 2570
Mason * * * * USA * * * * 2530
Bird * * * * * * England * 2440
Gunsberg * England * 2560
Albin * * * * * Romania *2450
Marco * * * * Austria * * 2520
Pollock * * * England * 2400
Tinsley * * * England * * *n/a
Mieses * * * Germany * 2490
Vergani * * * Italy * * * * * *n/a

Cuts *I don't see anyone of comparable relative stature in this year's
event; none of these ratings look like even top 20 or even top 50
level now. How, say, Lasker in his prime would do today, or how, say,
today's Malakhatko would do back in 1895 is of course grist for
endless speculation.

Well, that is ever the subject of retrofitting ratings - are they really
equivalents? True, Lasker is refitted at 2720, 120 points clear of the
2007/8 rating leader - but I personally don't think this means that Lasker
would be equivalent, and that modern players contain so much more knowledge,
technique et al, that /on the same scale/ they would rate no more than 2500
with today's players.

Incidentally, I have a tournament book [game scores, photos, analysis, with
a forward by Mark Taimanov] of the 1895, in Russian, with pictures never
before published in the West. I asked Stewart Reubin who, if anyone, had an
archive of the event? He didn't know of any central source.

I open the book at random and see game 190 is Marco-Mason which opened 1 e4
g6, a game which went 65 moves, and where black erred on move 21 annotates
MT, with c4?? instead of 21 ... f5, and again at 26 with Qb5-b3? where he
suggests instead Bh6.

As an illustration of some of the original players, and of opening 'finesse'
we are still in the age of romance. Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the denouement
at 46.

Of course, Bird Lasker famously opened 1. f4 e5, just like the game I posted
here recently though Lasker preferred 4... f7-f5 0-1 & 34 moves. Pollack
Vergani also begins eccenticaly with 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 Nf3 e5 and black lost
in 23.

So, I think, if only on the quality of the openings there is a great
difference then and now, but the number of superior lines that MT
contributes also address the technique difference to such large degree I am
not sure any of the orginals would finish above any of the current
participants



Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Would you please share with us the author and exact title of this
book? I see that you say Mark Taimanov wrote the forward, and you keep
referring to "MT" - does this mean that Taimanov provided all the
annotation, is the author?
Also please, who published, and what year?

Regards, and thanks,
zdrakec

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Walbrodt * * England * *2530

I must correct myself here; Carl August Walbrodt was not English. He
was born in Holland and died in Germany. I had him confused with
Victor Wahltuch, who was born in England.

Phil Innes wrote:
Well, that is ever the subject of retrofitting ratings - are they really
equivalents? True, Lasker is refitted at 2720, 120 points clear of the
2007/8 rating leader - but I personally don't think this means that Lasker
would be equivalent, and that modern players contain so much more knowledge,
technique et al, that /on the same scale/ they would rate no more than 2500
with today's players.

Phil, you really think Lasker today would rate no more than 2500 Elo
today? I'd speculate that might be the case, at least at first, if,
say, we took the Lasker of 1900 and magically transported him to 2007.
But given a chance to study modern theory and other chess literature,
I suspect he would improve rapidly, were he motivated enough.

Incidentally, I have a tournament book [game scores, photos, analysis, with
a forward by Mark Taimanov] of the 1895, in Russian, with pictures never
before published in the West. I asked Stewart Reubin who, if anyone, had an
archive of the event? He didn't know of any central source.

The English version has some photos, of most but not all the
players. What all does the Russian version have?

I open the book at random and see game 190 is Marco-Mason which opened 1 e4
g6,

Pillsbury annotates that game in the English version. He describes
1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.c3 Bg7 as perhaps "the least objectionable of the
Fianchetto openings" but says "most modern masters prefer to meet the
open game face to face."

a game which went 65 moves, and where black erred on move 21
annotates
MT, with c4?? instead of 21 ... f5,

Pillsbury made the same recommendation in 1896.

and again at 26 with Qb5-b3? where he
suggests instead Bh6.

Again Pillsbury said the same.

As an illustration of some of the original players, and of opening 'finesse'
we are still in the age of romance. Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the denouement
at 46.

Sounds a lot like the 1896 notes by S. Tinsley, who gives 8 notes
for the first 17 moves. Can you be specific about what Taimanov says?
I'd be curious whether he's contributing original analysis, or just
repeating the original book.

Of course, Bird Lasker famously opened 1. f4 e5, just like the game I posted
here recently though Lasker preferred 4... f7-f5 0-1 & 34 moves. Pollack
Vergani also begins eccenticaly with 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 Nf3 e5 and black lost
in 23.

Poor Beniamino Vergani (1863-1927). The glory days of Italian chess
were long past, and he scored a miserable +2 -17 =2 to finish 22nd,
dead last. Worse than last, one might say, as he was 4½ points behind
the next lowest players, Mieses and Tinsley. The tournament book
tacfully says "he was slightly overmatched." Oddly, his two wins were
against Gunsberg and Schlechter, past and future world title
challengers, respectively.

"zdrakec" wrote in message
...

Would you please share with us the author and exact title of this
book? I see that you say Mark Taimanov wrote the forward, and you keep
referring to "MT" - does this mean that Taimanov provided all the
annotation, is the author?

--
**Most of - he certainly performed function as editor. I must translate a
bit to find any English text:

Copyright 1995. ISBN: 5-87395-004-2:

Sorry; there is no other English text; tho I think you can still buy the
nice little hardcover with inscribed gold print from Shahcom: tho their
search engine does not find the English title; it is inexpensive, maybe 7
bucks + shipping - unsure if still in print. At the time Shahcom employed
the services of a very strong cadre of player-analysts from St. P, such as
Petr Svidler and W Ch Alexd. Khalifman - not to mention materials by Karpov
and Kasparov.

Good luck if you can still get one. Mine was a gift. Annotation is
long-algebraic.

Cordially, Phil
--



Also please, who published, and what year?

Regards, and thanks,
zdrakec

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...


Phil, you really think Lasker today would rate no more than 2500 Elo
today? I'd speculate that might be the case, at least at first, if,
say, we took the Lasker of 1900 and magically transported him to 2007.
But given a chance to study modern theory and other chess literature,
I suspect he would improve rapidly, were he motivated enough.

**This is the very conjecture! Would the grand master before there was a
term, be defeated by a 17 year old these days, such as young Vitugiov? Would
the same-aged Carlsen smash him?

Since you ask - this is indeed the opionion of Petersburgers - they would.


Incidentally, I have a tournament book [game scores, photos, analysis,
with
a forward by Mark Taimanov] of the 1895, in Russian, with pictures never
before published in the West. I asked Stewart Reubin who, if anyone, had
an
archive of the event? He didn't know of any central source.

The English version has some photos, of most but not all the
players. What all does the Russian version have?

**Since I do not have an English version - what is it called, published by
whom? - I can't compare the two. If I could I would scan and repeat the
Russian pictures.

I open the book at random and see game 190 is Marco-Mason which opened 1
e4
g6,

Pillsbury annotates that game in the English version. He describes
1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.c3 Bg7 as perhaps "the least objectionable of the
Fianchetto openings" but says "most modern masters prefer to meet the
open game face to face."

**yes - not anticipating hyper-modern theory

a game which went 65 moves, and where black erred on move 21
annotates
MT, with c4?? instead of 21 ... f5,

Pillsbury made the same recommendation in 1896.

**indeed

and again at 26 with Qb5-b3? where he
suggests instead Bh6.

Again Pillsbury said the same.

**well, yes - but what is this to recommend the originali players OTB,
rather than in analysis? Tal killed that approach.

As an illustration of some of the original players, and of opening
'finesse'
we are still in the age of romance. Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the
denouement
at 46.

Sounds a lot like the 1896 notes by S. Tinsley, who gives 8 notes
for the first 17 moves. Can you be specific about what Taimanov says?

**It is in Russian! Though I could give his analysis...

I'd be curious whether he's contributing original analysis, or just
repeating the original book.

**Surely he will have overrtakenn Tinsley. MT being a somewhat stronger
player.

Of course, Bird Lasker famously opened 1. f4 e5, just like the game I
posted
here recently though Lasker preferred 4... f7-f5 0-1 & 34 moves. Pollack
Vergani also begins eccenticaly with 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cd 3 Nf3 e5 and black
lost
in 23.

Poor Beniamino Vergani (1863-1927). The glory days of Italian chess
were long past, and he scored a miserable +2 -17 =2 to finish 22nd,
dead last. Worse than last, one might say, as he was 4½ points behind
the next lowest players, Mieses and Tinsley. The tournament book
tacfully says "he was slightly overmatched." Oddly, his two wins were
against Gunsberg and Schlechter, past and future world title
challengers, respectively.

**And which must return us to the point of these retrospective ratings - and
if they were at all the equivalent of modern ones? It seems somewhat
dishonest to me to make such comparison, as if... Laker eg was to be
considered as 1700, against a modern player, the same rating. I think such
as a Mickey Adams would crush him again and again and suffer no defeats -
probably not even any draws.

**This is not to diminish Lasker as the stongest player of the time, but to
equivocate with 'retro-ratings', which, methinks, are crap!

Phil Innes

"Chess One" wrote in message
news
**And which must return us to the point of these retrospective ratings -
and if they were at all the equivalent of modern ones? It seems somewhat
dishonest to me to make such comparison, as if... Laker eg was to be
considered as 1700,

lol - drunk again! 2700 was the intent.


against a modern player, the same rating. I think such as a Mickey Adams
would crush him again and again and suffer no defeats - probably not even
any draws.

**This is not to diminish Lasker as the stongest player of the time, but
to equivocate with 'retro-ratings', which, methinks, are crap!

so I would add that eg Adams/Svidler even Carlsen would defeat Lasker 50 - 0

PI


Phil Innes

On Dec 30, 3:50 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

Walbrodt England 2530

I must correct myself here; Carl August Walbrodt was not English. He
was born in Holland and died in Germany. I had him confused with
Victor Wahltuch, who was born in England.

Phil Innes wrote:

Well, that is ever the subject of retrofitting ratings - are they really
equivalents? True, Lasker is refitted at 2720, 120 points clear of the
2007/8 rating leader - but I personally don't think this means that Lasker
would be equivalent, and that modern players contain so much more knowledge,
technique et al, that /on the same scale/ they would rate no more than 2500
with today's players.

Phil, you really think Lasker today would rate no more than 2500 Elo
today? I

You do realize you are asking this of the twit who truncated a
tournament crosstable in order to show Lasker finishing last, don't
you?

On Dec 30, 5:50*pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**This is the very conjecture! Would the grand master before there was a
term, be defeated by a 17 year old these days, such as young Vitugiov? Would
the same-aged Carlsen smash him?

Since you ask - this is indeed the opionion of Petersburgers - they would.

Alas, we will never know.

**Since I do not have an English version - what is it called, published by
whom? - I can't compare the two. If I could I would scan and repeat the
Russian pictures.

I wasn't asking for the two to be compared. I was asking what photos
does the Russian edition have? The English edition has portraits and
autographs of Pillsbury, Burn, Mason, Tinsley, Pollock, Schiffers,
Tarrasch, Marco, Gunsberg, Janowski, Chigorin, Teichmann, Vergani,
Lasker, Blackburne, Steinitz, Albin, Bird, Schlechter, Mieses,
Walbrodt, and Bardeleben, i.e. all 22 contestants (I was wrong earlier
when I said not all were shown). Does the Russian edition have these,
plus more besides?

MT, with c4?? instead of 21 ... f5,

* Pillsbury made the same recommendation in 1896.

**indeed

and again at 26 with Qb5-b3? where he
suggests instead Bh6.

* Again Pillsbury said the same.

**well, yes - but what is this to recommend the originali players OTB,
rather than in analysis? Tal killed that approach.

That's not my point. My question is, has Taimanov done original
analysis, or does he merely repeat what is in the 1896 book? This game
indicates perhaps the latter, but only a detailed comparison can tell
for sure.

Another game 189 Gunsberg-Albin began:
1. e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3. ed and then develops rather eccentrically, so that MT
gives better lines for both players every 2 or 3 moves until the
denouement
at 46.

* Sounds a lot like the 1896 notes by S. Tinsley, who gives 8 notes
for the first 17 moves. Can you be specific about what Taimanov says?

**It is in Russian! Though I could give his analysis...

I'd be curious whether he's contributing original analysis, or just
repeating the original book.

**Surely he will have overrtakenn Tinsley. MT being a somewhat stronger
player.

No argument there. But to know if MT did any original analysis for
that game, we'd need you to translate and present what MT said, and
then we could compare it to Tinsley's notes.

**And which must return us to the point of these retrospective ratings - and
if they were at all the equivalent of modern ones? It seems somewhat
dishonest to me to make such comparison, as if... Laker eg was to be
considered as 2700, against a modern player, the same rating.

No, I agree that is not the correct understanding of the ratings.
Comparing historical to current Elos across such a gulf of years is
invalid. We can definitely say that Lasker's 2720 trumps Tarrasch's
2610, but we can't say that Lasker's 2720 circa 1900 equals a 2720
today.

I think such
as a Mickey Adams would crush him again and again and suffer no defeats -
probably not even any draws.

That might be taking it a bit too far.

so I would add that eg Adams/Svidler even Carlsen would defeat Lasker 50 - 0

I'd say that is definitely taking it too far! :-)