On May 19, 3:58*pm, help bot wrote:
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?

Obviously, to watch your toga twist like it was in a taffy-pulling
machine.

*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? *

So far, no one has. You seem to be confusing two things:

1) a list giving peak and/or 1978 ratings for the players who
happened to play at Santa Monica 1966, and
2) their actual FIDE ratings as of 1966.

I provided the former, and never claimed to be providing the latter.
Since there were no FIDE ratings in 1966, no one, least of all our
reference-starved Greg, can provide their ratings for 1966. Or for the
players at Los Angeles 1963 as of 1963, or the players at New York
1927 as of 1927. In view of that, it seemed to me that the 5-year peak
ratings Elo provides in his 1978 book were better than nothing,
providing some data relevant to the discussion about the strength of
various US tournaments.
If you can do better, Greg, feel free. No doubt a golden throne will
be your reward in Paradise.

On May 19, 5:57 pm, wrote:

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?

So far, no one has. You seem to be confusing two things:

1) a list giving peak and/or 1978 ratings for the players who
happened to play at Santa Monica 1966, and
2) their actual FIDE ratings as of 1966.

On the contrary, the issue is the dishonest
presentation of (1) above where what was
actually called for was (2) above.

In order to address Sir Dr. IMnes' claim, we
need to find real rating numbers, not irrelevant
ones like Bobby Fischer's FIDE rating in the
year 1978. You see, irrelevant numbers don't
have anything to do with the issue being
discussed; and I don't know what could be
more irrelevant than a rating from the year
1978, when attempting to determine the
average strength of a tourney played in the
year *1966*. (This reminds me of the feud
between Larry Evans and Edward Winter,
for the former never did seem to comprehend
in which decade the events under discussion
had occurred.)


I provided the former, and never claimed to be providing the latter.

Ah, but the issue was not what TK may
or may not have /claimed/; the issue was
that, in relation to the Piatigorsky Cup, a
dishonest loon provided some irrelevant
ratings, one of which I selected to show
how this ploy mangled any attempt to
calculate a tournament average. In each
instance encountered thus far, the loon
has erred -- if that is quite the word -- on
the high side, for the obvious reason of
straining to tweak the facts so that they
might discredit Dr. IMnes. My position is
simple: there is no /need/ to struggle and
strain in such an attempt, for the Andean
scholar is perfectly able -- and willing -- to
do that job himself. Why not just go with
the actual ratings or estimated ratings
which pertain to 1966-- the year in which
the tournament actually took place, in
reality? Seriously.


-- help bot

On May 19, 6:38*pm, help bot wrote:

*Why not just go with
the actual ratings or estimated ratings
which pertain to 1966

As I said, feel free to provide them. In terms of any ratings at all
relevant to this discussion, I rather doubt you can provide anything
at all.

On May 19, 6:43 pm, wrote:

Why not just go with
the actual ratings or estimated ratings
which pertain to 1966

As I said, feel free to provide them. In terms of any ratings at all
relevant to this discussion, I rather doubt you can provide anything
at all.

I take it the loon has finally realized the folly of
his deceitful ways, and now desires to change
the subject-- to me "providing" some relevant
numbers, where he has quite obviously failed.
Very well then.

For lack of any comprehensive reference on
the FIDE ratings of these players, my advice is
very simple: toss aside the FIDE ratings for a
moment and just take the numbers one can
easily find on the internet. If we were to take
the ratings as listed on one Web site, and do
the very same with those old timers, we could
get a fair-and-balanced view of which tourneys
were stronger. (No tweaking or straining to
"beat" Dr. IMnes. Just the facts, Ma'am.)

Here is just one such Web site:

http://www.chessmetrics.com/

As I pointed out before, Sir nearly-IMnes has
yet to post any list of players or actual ratings
by which to compare; he merely tossed out a
random figure of "2600", snatched from the
ether of his home planet, Blatheron. As a
somewhat lazy bot, I just don't see the point
of looking up all those players unless and
until IM Dr. Innes posts names and numbers
for his "strongest U.S. tourney of all time",
for his credibility is non-existent.

Even so, one could look up, say, Bobby
Fischer, and see that he was definitely *not* at
his 1978 level of FIDE 2780 in the tournament
in 1966. And one could very easily determine
that the insistence by one loon (whose initials
are "TK") that Frank Marshall was "at or near"
his peak in 1927, was well off the mark. In
fact, it seems /possible/ that the loon's home
planet could be in the same solar system as
nearly-IMnes, or at least in a nearby galaxy.

The way I see it, the TK loon may well just be
in the habit of cheating and tweaking thinks;
he may not really be firmly convinced that he
cannot take on Dr. Nearly in a fair game. Old
habits die hard-- or, more often, not at all. But
we cannot safely rule out fear-- yet; at least
not until Sir IMnes posts numbers which are
easily bested with real numbers, not TK's
imaginary ones. Let's not forget "from where"
the other loon here pulled out his own number,
2600. Alas, the two loons are well-matched!


-- hep bot

* 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.

Very Expensive. He could have bought 4 laptops with that much money.


* Now I'm back, and ready to rumble!

Lets see how you win the Advance Level.

Bye
Sanny

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

wrote in message
...


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

**Spitting? Got something to say Taylor - spit it out.

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.

**Either I brought it up or I didn't. Its not an 'attempt'.

**Here we go with another fuss-fest from Taylor who, unless you include 27
sub-paragraphs on every aspect of a public newsgroup post, goes into a
tizzy, and starts calling nams.

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?

**Since you don't align your text with mine, what facts are you contesting?
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament, and asked you to contest it if you think there was a cat 15
before, or some equal field of players averaging 2600.

**Of course Piatigorsky and Lone Pine were stronger - so /evidently/ I meant
by US tournament, US players. But Taylor thinks this is 'getting out of
something'.

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.

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.)

**You think that's a point? I [laugh] laugh at people who make the
distinction of rating and strength, since this is a distinction without a
difference.

**But to be on topic, where is any content in your post? Its all spit so
far.

Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment. 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), and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly
ignorant of chess history.

** ? What a mouthful of spite!

(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.

**What the **** are you talking about Taylor Kingston? Its just your usual
****y post on what /you/ understood from anything. You can't even present
your own statement of your own idea. And you slunk away from my challenge to
say what that is to write this frothy stuff. Its your usual posturing in
public - and you have said nothing in this message to contest anything I
wrote.

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
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.

Just one more time. Category 15 is 2600 average. It is not, [at best in
their carears] 2450 average, even by somewhat rosy retro-calculations.

Phil Innes


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 20, 9:20*am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...

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

**Spitting? Got something to say Taylor - spit it out.

I have something to say now and then, but I didn't say that. I
believe that was Mr. Hillery.

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.

**Either I brought it up or I didn't. Its not an 'attempt'.

**Here we go with another fuss-fest from Taylor who, unless you include 27
sub-paragraphs on every aspect of a public newsgroup post, goes into a
tizzy, and starts calling nams.

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?

**Since you don't align your text with mine, what facts are you contesting?
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament, and asked you to contest it if you think there was a cat 15
before, or some equal field of players averaging 2600.

**Of course Piatigorsky and Lone Pine were stronger - so /evidently/ I meant
by US tournament, US players. But Taylor thinks this is 'getting out of
something'.

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.

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.)

**You think that's a point? I [laugh] laugh at people who make the
distinction of rating and strength, since this is a distinction without a
difference.

**But to be on topic, where is any content in your post? Its all spit so
far.

Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment. 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), and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly
ignorant of chess history.

** ? What a mouthful of spite!

*(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.

**What the **** are you talking about Taylor Kingston? *Its just your usual
****y post on what /you/ understood from anything. You can't even present
your own statement of your own idea. And you slunk away from my challenge to
say what that is to write this frothy stuff. Its your usual posturing in
public - and you have said nothing in this message to contest anything I
wrote.

On May 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...

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

**Spitting? Got something to say Taylor - spit it out.

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.

**Either I brought it up or I didn't. Its not an 'attempt'.

**Here we go with another fuss-fest from Taylor who, unless you include 27
sub-paragraphs on every aspect of a public newsgroup post, goes into a
tizzy, and starts calling nams.

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?

**Since you don't align your text with mine, what facts are you contesting?
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament, and asked you to contest it if you think there was a cat 15
before, or some equal field of players averaging 2600.

**Of course Piatigorsky and Lone Pine were stronger - so /evidently/ I meant
by US tournament, US players. But Taylor thinks this is 'getting out of
something'.

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.

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.)

**You think that's a point? I [laugh] laugh at people who make the
distinction of rating and strength, since this is a distinction without a
difference.

**But to be on topic, where is any content in your post? Its all spit so
far.

Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment. 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), and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly
ignorant of chess history.

** ? What a mouthful of spite!

(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.

**What the **** are you talking about Taylor Kingston? Its just your usual
****y post on what /you/ understood from anything. You can't even present
your own statement of your own idea. And you slunk away from my challenge to
say what that is to write this frothy stuff. Its your usual posturing in
public - and you have said nothing in this message to contest anything I
wrote.

Amazing. Until I read P Innes' post above, I never knew John Hillery
and Taylor Kingston were one and the same person. This is as shocking
as the news that Dr. Steven B. Dowd and Larry Tapper were one and the
same - another 'discovery' by P Innes.

On May 20, 8:29 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...



On May 16, 10:18 am, wrote:

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.

Just one more time. Category 15 is 2600 average. It is not, [at best in
their carears] 2450 average, even by somewhat rosy retro-calculations.

Phil Innes

Another example of P Innes' inability to follow a thread. Note he
quotes me while trying to answer Taylor Kingston.