On May 15, 6:58 pm, wrote:

Phil, are you capable of discussing the matter sensibly, or is
spitting clouds of ink your only talent?

That was a rhetorical question, John, correct?

1) "U.S. tournament" means exactly what is says, a tournament held in
the U.S. The residence or citizenship of the players is completely
irrelevant. Your attempt to bring this up indicates that either you
don't understand the question or don''t have an answer.

Both. And, of course, his original statement was his usual puffery.

2) New York 1927 did not have ten players. You are probably thinking
of New York 1924 (though that had 11). Can you really expect your
opinions to be taken seriously when you lack a grasp of the facts?
Note that I deliberately did not mention New York 1924 because, while
the top half (maybe 2/3) was very strong, there several relatively
weak players at the bottom bringing the average down.

Cambridge Springs 1904 could be left out for the same reason, although
many of the world's strongest players turned out for it. There very
well may be other "US tournaments" to consider as well.

3) The question is not _rating_, it's _playing strength_. (I made that
point in my original post, but apparently it went over your head.)
Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment.

A world champion and his challenger played in NY 1927. Where are there
likes today for the SPICE Puff, err, Cup?

I'm quite willing to consider differing
opinions on this -- but only from those qualified to hold an opinion.
Frankly, Phil, that doesn''t include you. You're a fairly weak player
(low Expert),

If that, if the comments from folks who actually played chess with him
are to be believed.

and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly
ignorant of chess history. (Have you even played though the games of
those three tournaments?) Most people keep quiet when they know
nothing of a subject, not wanting to make fools of themselves. In your
case, that horse has clearly left the barn.

On May 16, 9:50 am, The Historian wrote:
On May 15, 6:58 pm, wrote:

Phil, are you capable of discussing the matter sensibly, or is
spitting clouds of ink your only talent?

That was a rhetorical question, John, correct?

1) "U.S. tournament" means exactly what is says, a tournament held in
the U.S. The residence or citizenship of the players is completely
irrelevant. Your attempt to bring this up indicates that either you
don't understand the question or don''t have an answer.

Both. And, of course, his original statement was his usual puffery.

2) New York 1927 did not have ten players. You are probably thinking
of New York 1924 (though that had 11). Can you really expect your
opinions to be taken seriously when you lack a grasp of the facts?
Note that I deliberately did not mention New York 1924 because, while
the top half (maybe 2/3) was very strong, there several relatively
weak players at the bottom bringing the average down.

Cambridge Springs 1904 could be left out for the same reason, although
many of the world's strongest players turned out for it.

Cambridge Springs 1904 had even more lower-rated players bringing
down the average than New York 1924. There were definitely some top-
rank greats: Lasker, Chigorin, Marshall, Janowski, Schlechter,
Teichmann, and Pillsbury (though his powers had greatly waned), but
these were counterbalanced by the likes of Mieses, Napier, Showalter,
Fox, Lawrence, Barry, and Hodges, all of whom at their best were in
the 2400-2500 range.
Based on the ratings devised by British statistician Richard Clarke,
the BCM rated New York 1924 at Category 13, according to Fox & James,
who don't even list Cambridge Springs.

There very
well may be other "US tournaments" to consider as well.

San Antonio 1972 comes to mind, with such greats as Karpov,
Petrosian, Portisch, Keres, Gligoric, Hort, Larsen and Mecking. But it
also had many sub-2600 players: Suttles (I don't have his 1972 rating,
but he was 2470 as of 1/1/1978), D. Byrne (peak ~2500), Browne (2550
in 1978), Evans (2530), Kaplan (2460), Campos-Lopez (2355), Saidy
(2430), and Ken Smith (~2300?).



3) The question is not _rating_, it's _playing strength_. (I made that
point in my original post, but apparently it went over your head.)
Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment.

A world champion and his challenger played in NY 1927. Where are there
likes today for the SPICE Puff, err, Cup?

I'm quite willing to consider differing

opinions on this -- but only from those qualified to hold an opinion.
Frankly, Phil, that doesn''t include you. You're a fairly weak player
(low Expert),

If that, if the comments from folks who actually played chess with him
are to be believed.

and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly



ignorant of chess history. (Have you even played though the games of
those three tournaments?) Most people keep quiet when they know
nothing of a subject, not wanting to make fools of themselves. In your
case, that horse has clearly left the barn.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* *San Antonio 1972 comes to mind, with such greats as Karpov,
Petrosian, Portisch, Keres, Gligoric, Hort, Larsen and Mecking. But it
also had many sub-2600 players: Suttles (I don't have his 1972 rating,
but he was 2470 as of 1/1/1978), D. Byrne (peak ~2500), Browne (2550
in 1978), Evans (2530), Kaplan (2460), Campos-Lopez (2355), Saidy
(2430), and Ken Smith (~2300?).


You need to tack on about 150 to 200 points to Duncan Suttles - call
them style points.

Regards,
zdrakec

On May 16, 10:18 am, wrote:
On May 16, 9:50 am, The Historian wrote:



On May 15, 6:58 pm, wrote:

Phil, are you capable of discussing the matter sensibly, or is
spitting clouds of ink your only talent?

That was a rhetorical question, John, correct?

1) "U.S. tournament" means exactly what is says, a tournament held in
the U.S. The residence or citizenship of the players is completely
irrelevant. Your attempt to bring this up indicates that either you
don't understand the question or don''t have an answer.

Both. And, of course, his original statement was his usual puffery.

2) New York 1927 did not have ten players. You are probably thinking
of New York 1924 (though that had 11). Can you really expect your
opinions to be taken seriously when you lack a grasp of the facts?
Note that I deliberately did not mention New York 1924 because, while
the top half (maybe 2/3) was very strong, there several relatively
weak players at the bottom bringing the average down.

Cambridge Springs 1904 could be left out for the same reason, although
many of the world's strongest players turned out for it.

Cambridge Springs 1904 had even more lower-rated players bringing
down the average than New York 1924. There were definitely some top-
rank greats: Lasker, Chigorin, Marshall, Janowski, Schlechter,
Teichmann, and Pillsbury (though his powers had greatly waned), but
these were counterbalanced by the likes of Mieses, Napier, Showalter,
Fox, Lawrence, Barry, and Hodges, all of whom at their best were in
the 2400-2500 range.

Where are the modern-day Lasker, Chigorin, etc, for the SPICE Puff,
err, Cup? That's my point. Also, I believe Hodges, Showalter, Napier,
etc, are being underestimated in all this discussion simply because
they are being judged on retro-ratings. Showalter was a US Champion,
Napier a British Champion; accomplishment means something folks. So
does standing out as a top player when there were very few in the
world.

Based on the ratings devised by British statistician Richard Clarke,
the BCM rated New York 1924 at Category 13, according to Fox & James,
who don't even list Cambridge Springs.

There very
well may be other "US tournaments" to consider as well.

San Antonio 1972 comes to mind, with such greats as Karpov,
Petrosian, Portisch, Keres, Gligoric, Hort, Larsen and Mecking. But it
also had many sub-2600 players: Suttles (I don't have his 1972 rating,
but he was 2470 as of 1/1/1978), D. Byrne (peak ~2500), Browne (2550
in 1978), Evans (2530), Kaplan (2460), Campos-Lopez (2355), Saidy
(2430), and Ken Smith (~2300?).

3) The question is not _rating_, it's _playing strength_. (I made that
point in my original post, but apparently it went over your head.)
Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment.

A world champion and his challenger played in NY 1927. Where are there
likes today for the SPICE Puff, err, Cup?

I'm quite willing to consider differing

opinions on this -- but only from those qualified to hold an opinion.
Frankly, Phil, that doesn''t include you. You're a fairly weak player
(low Expert),

If that, if the comments from folks who actually played chess with him
are to be believed.

and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly

ignorant of chess history. (Have you even played though the games of
those three tournaments?) Most people keep quiet when they know
nothing of a subject, not wanting to make fools of themselves. In your
case, that horse has clearly left the barn.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 15, 10:17 am, wrote:

As a journalist, surely John Hillery will want to substatiate his point by
mentioning even one fact; for example, a list of 10 players he proposes to
average 2600 from 1927, would seem to me to be a minimum proposition on his
part in order to be plausible.

Here are the contestants at New York 1927, with their 5-year peak
ratings as given by Dr. Elo in his book:

Here we go again. For some reason or other, Mr.
Kingston enjoys "tweaking" chess ratings a bit so
they better fit his momentary purposes; here, that
purpose is to boost certain numbers a tad -- a feat
accomplished rather easily by substituting *peak*
ratings for actual ratings. (There's something
vaguely familiar about this... .)


Capablanca: 2725
Alekhine: 2690
Nimzovitch: 2615
Vidmar: 2600
Spielmann: 2560
Marshall: 2570

We know the year-- 1927, so why on God's green
Earth would anybody fetch a list of peak ratings,
instead of the actual or estimated ratings from the
relevant year?


That's an average of 2627, which would nudge it just into Category
16 (Elo 2626-2650). Probably a pretty reasonable estimate, perhaps a
mite high -- with the exception of the oldest player, Marshall, these
masters were all at or near their time of peak performance.

At or near, eh? All at precisely the same time, eh?
What a loon. Even if all these players were Siamese
quintuplets, the odds of them peaking at the same
time at chess are astronomical.

Frank Marshall certainly was past his peak in 1927--
the actual year of this event, for those who live in the
real world.

Dr. Sir Phillip IMnes wants to leap to the conclusion
that it is unlikely that "any" U.S. tournament could
have averaged over 2600, and this raises a valid point
(which is quite odd for the 2450-rated Shakespeare
scholar and renowned Andean-language expert). It
was really tough for those old-timers to achieve such
high retro-active ratings; the further back in time you
go, the lower the top-rated players tended to be.

Even so, if caught red-handed in a fabrication, the
nearly-an-IM would never admit his error; indeed, the
last time around he offered up the term "hyperbole"
to describe lies and fabrications-- but only those by
folks he hangs out with, of course.

I am left wondering if, without any "tweaking" by
Mr. Kingston whatsoever, these other tourneys
could really best the arbitrary 2600 mark. And for
that matter, why is the mark set at 2600? Dr.
IMnes did not give a list of names or ratings, so an
average could be calculated.


-- help bot

On May 15, 1:43 pm, wrote:

Question: Is it really plausible to claim that this tournament is/will
be stronger than New York 1927, or the 1st and 2nd Piatigorsky Cups?

Just for the sake of fuller information, here are the Patigorsky Cup
contestants, and their 5-year peak Elo ratings (or Jan 1978 rating
where Elo does not give a 5-year peak):

1966:

Fischer 2780 (1/11978)

Here it is again. In fact, even Mr. Kingston must
know that GM Fischer's *actual* rating in the
Piatigorsky Cup was not 2780; indeed, this is
because the man won and won and kept on winning
from that point onward, ultimately reaching the
number TK dishonestly presents above as pertaining
to the event in question. In 1971 alone, BF gained a
lot of rating points just from defeating GMs Taimanov
and Larsen, both 6-0. So why on Earth would TK
present a number from the year 1978 instead? Or
attempt to fetch a 5-year "peak" rating to substitute
for BF's actual strength in the Piatigorsky Cup? My
first guess would be utter incompetence, but that
fails to account for all the facts. One fact is that
each time TK "errs", he seems to always err in a
very predictable direction. Enough said.


-- help bot

On May 19, 3:55*am, help bot wrote:
On May 15, 1:43 pm, wrote:

Question: Is it really plausible to claim that this tournament is/will
be stronger than New York 1927, or the 1st and 2nd Piatigorsky Cups?
* Just for the sake of fuller information, here are the Patigorsky Cup
contestants, and their 5-year peak Elo ratings (or Jan 1978 rating
where Elo does not give a 5-year peak):
1966:
Fischer * * * * *2780 (1/11978)

* Here it is again. *In fact, even Mr. Kingston must
know that GM Fischer's *actual* rating in the
Piatigorsky Cup was not 2780;

You have a firm grasp of the obvious, Greg.

indeed, this is
because the man won and won and kept on winning
from that point onward, ultimately reaching the

Heck, I heard he was even World Champion for a while.

number TK dishonestly presents above as pertaining
to the event in question.

No, I said quite plainly that the 2780 FIDE rating was as of 1
January 1978. To quote the relevant part of my post, which you were
apparently unable to read: "5-year peak Elo ratings (or Jan 1978
rating where Elo does not give a 5-year peak)."

*In 1971 alone, BF gained a
lot of rating points just from defeating GMs Taimanov
and Larsen, both 6-0. *So why on Earth would TK
present a number from the year 1978 instead?

Surely you are aware, Greg, that FIDE did not start rating its
players until 1970? There is no FIDE rating list for 1963 or 1966 one
can consult. Therefore, it seemed the next best thing to use the peak
or current ratings as given in Elo's 1978 book.
For what it's worth, Fischer's USCF rating as of January 1966 was
2706. Reshevsky's was 2591. The other contestants at Santa Monica 1966
do not appear on that USCF rating list.

*Or
attempt to fetch a 5-year "peak" rating to substitute
for BF's actual strength in the Piatigorsky Cup?

I made no such attempt. The point was merely to give a *_general
idea_* of the participants' playing strength, in support of the
assertion that Santa Monica 1966 was one of the three strongest
tournaments ever held on American soil up to that time.
If making mountains of molehills was a profitable pursuit, our Greg
would be a latter-day Croesus.

Where were you last 5 days, were you on a business Trip?

What abt the game against Advance Level you started at GetClub. Are
you able to win the game.

Its getting tougher and tougher to win the Higher Levels.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On May 19, 9:31 am, wrote:

number TK dishonestly presents above as pertaining
to the event in question.

No, I said quite plainly that the 2780 FIDE rating was as of 1
January 1978.

Indeed. The question is, why? In sum, why on
Earth would anyone give a rating from the year
1978 as a proxy for BF's chess rating in the year
1966? This is a dishonest ploy-- not unlike the
time when Mr. Sloan dishonestly charatcerised
TK himself as being a mere 1800 player, when
he knew better.

A total ignoramus might be excused for such
an act-- clearly on the basis of incompetence;
but to deliberately attempt such ploys is not
incompetence at all; it is rank dishonesty.

I don't have handy a year-by-year listing of
FIDE ratings, but anyone can, with a few clicks
of the mouse, quite easily determine that BF's
rating/strength in the 1966 event in question
was some hundred or hundred and fifty points
lower than the figure presented here by TK. In
fact, BF seems to have underperformed a bit
in that one; perhaps the loss to Boris Spassky?

I just plucked one or two examples out to
make a point; in no way do I endorse the other
ratings presented by Mr. Kingston as fair-and-
balanced. The fact is that Frank Marshall was
*not* at his peak, and that Bobby Fischer was
*not* at 2780-- two misrepresentations which
quite naturally, both "err" in the desired-by-TK
direction. Let's face facts: we are dealing with
Sir IMnes, so there is no /need/ to cheat in
order to prevail, is there? "We" can defeat the
nearly-an-IM honestly, fairly-- that's my opinion.
If any low-lifes need help in this regard, they
can just ask, and I will be happy to lend a
helping-bot hand.


-- help bot

On May 19, 10:43 am, Sanny wrote:

Where were you last 5 days, were you on a business Trip?

What abt the game against Advance Level you started at GetClub. Are
you able to win the game.

Its getting tougher and tougher to win the Higher Levels.

I flew to Malaysia to take care of a technical problem
which had disabled one of my favorite client's computers.
I showed him how to purchase and install a basic anti-
virus program, so he would once again be able to both
send and receive messages and emails. Total costs,
including all expenses: $4,231, but that does include
a year's subscription to the free version of AVG.

Now I'm back, and ready to rumble!


-- help bot