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

SPICE should organize a tournament for young women, too. They could
call it the... I'll get my coat.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Laptop Gerbil (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a children's pet that you can put on
your lap but you can eat it!

Chess One wrote:
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You wrote, `Strongest ever US Tournament'. It's
still there on the web at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...ive_2008Q2.htm

I quote it in its entirety (my emphasis):

Coming up later this Year -- **Strongest ever US Tournament**

September 19th to 28th sees a [so far] Category 15 tournament on US
soil in the 10 player SPICE CUP. Seven of the 10 invitees have
already signed up, and I understand average Elo is currently 2600.
Chessville's senior editor Kelly Atkins recently visited the SPICE
campus at Lubbock and will make an extended report on its current
and future activities.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Love Goldfish (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fish that you can share with
someone special but it'll turn your
stomach!

On May 21, 6:49 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Chess One wrote:
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You wrote, `Strongest ever US Tournament'. It's
still there on the web at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...ive_2008Q2.htm

I quote it in its entirety (my emphasis):

Coming up later this Year -- **Strongest ever US Tournament**

September 19th to 28th sees a [so far] Category 15 tournament on US
soil in the 10 player SPICE CUP. Seven of the 10 invitees have
already signed up, and I understand average Elo is currently 2600.
Chessville's senior editor Kelly Atkins recently visited the SPICE
campus at Lubbock and will make an extended report on its current
and future activities.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Love Goldfish (TM): it'swww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fish that you can share with
someone special but it'll turn your
stomach!

Catching P Innes denying his own words is rather like shooting fish in
a barrel, isn't it?

Chess One wrote:
In your case, that horse has clearly left the barn.

What, pray, was the horse doing in the barn in the first place?


Dave.



--
David Richerby Love Lotion (TM): it's like a soothing
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hand lotion that you can share with
someone special!

On May 21, 7:49*am, David Richerby
wrote:
Chess One wrote:
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! *You wrote, `Strongest ever US Tournament'. *It's
still there on the web at

*http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...ive_2008Q2.htm

I quote it in its entirety (my emphasis):

* Coming up later this Year -- **Strongest ever US Tournament**

* September 19th to 28th sees a [so far] Category 15 tournament on US
* soil in the 10 player SPICE CUP. *Seven of the 10 invitees have
* already signed up, and I understand average Elo is currently 2600.
* Chessville's senior editor Kelly Atkins recently visited the SPICE
* campus at Lubbock and will make an extended report on its current
* and future activities.

It would appear that Mr. Hillery had a valid point. To call this the
"strongest ever US tournament" seems a definite exaggeration, in terms
of the rankings (rather than the ratings) of the players. Here is the
list of prospective contestants Innes posted a day or two ago:

GM Onischuk, Alexander 2728 USCF / 2663 FIDE
GM Akobian, Varuzhan 2666 USCF / 2612 FIDE
GM Kaidanov, Gregory 2697 USCF / 2611 FIDE
GM Becerra, Julio 2644 USCF / 2601 FIDE
GM Kritz, Leonid 2667 USCF / 2600 FIDE
GM Miton, Kamil 2703 USCF / 2581 FIDE
GM Perelshteyn, Eugene 2623 USCF / 2549 FIDE

Of these, only Onischuk is even in the FIDE top 100, at #56. In
contrast, New York 1924 had the world's #1, 2, and 3, and several of
the top 10 or 20. At New York 1927 all but one of the players were in
the top 10 or 12 of the time and it had the clear #1 and #2. Both
Piatigorsky Cup events (1963 and 1966) had the reigning World
Champion, the 1966 event had two soon-to-be World Champions, and they
both had a host of top-10 to top-20 players, the great majority of
whom were FIDE Candidates at one time or another.
This is not to disparage at all this group of current invitees,
which has an average FIDE rating of 2602, very commendable. I applaud
the organizers' efforts so far, and I hope the tournament is a great
success.
But let's not get carried away with hype. In terms of their rank in
the world chess hierarchy, this group is a far cry from the
contestants in the 1924, 1927, 1963 and 1966 events.

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 6:17 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

to the point:-

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as to the issue of the accuracy of the
original claim, I have this to say: the site to
which I referred does not give *current* ratings
for the entrants, so now, even with a partial
list of participants, it is no easy matter to do
the math. Indeed, the chessmetrics Web site
is best used to compare the results of older
events with one another, or to quickly and
easily refute idiotic claims -- like those made
by Taylor Kingston -- about when old timers
were at their peaks, etc.

He is not alone in his 'idiotic claims.' To think that Showalter and crew
were of category XV is extraordinary! But enough of pure nonsense - here is
sophisticated nonsence:

While regressed ratings of players is highly contentious, it can perhaps
allow those players to be ranked according to their peers. But to think that
top pre-hypermodern players would somehow perform well against current top
players is a very strange idea.

But, because they
do not use the same scale as FIDE, it is no
simple matter to compare current FIDE
numbers to those of chessmetrics.

What we may be...

I understand the company will make another press release on yet another new
service. I am not as much boosting their commercial prospects, as welcoming
new ways of evaluating chess players. I think thorough criticism of their
new systems is the highest compliment that can be paid them, since it would
orient chess metrics to /useful/ categorisations and comparisons, as well as
encouraging the chess public to speak up for what they want, encouraged by
the idea that their views would be noticed!

Since other system are irredemiably corrupt to the point of becoming inert,
then I do not criticise this company their initiative.

In any case, let us see how it all evolves... and what public reception it
gets. [I understand that some form of this service is udergoing serious
evaluation in England and in Australia, eg.]

Phil Innes



-- help bot

"nobody" wrote in message
...
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.



Tch! - Phil, you have confused ttk5079@ (TK) with jkh001@ (JH)?? Yes, I
know it's easy to do but a personage of your standing & import should
really be @ pains to avoid such crassness. Please post an immediate
apology to Taylor forthwith - thankyou..


Dear Tinker,

I not only forthwith apologise, I'll make it fifthwith! I have sinned! Mea
culpa, mea crassa negligentia culpa!

I suppose I should also apologise to John Hillery too, but I don't want to
wear myself out and exhaust the apology quota tolerance level of the
newsgroup.

My only defence is that I couldn't distinguish between two nihilisms, which
reminds me of a very old joke... about 250 years old, and British Navy.
Maybe John would like to answer it?

STRONGEST IS...?

In the Navy, if two weevils crawl out of a ship's biscuit and start to
fight, which one would you bet on - the smaller or the larger one?

Phil Innes

On May 21, 8:10 am, "Chess One" wrote:

He is not alone in his 'idiotic claims.' To think that Showalter and crew
were of category XV is extraordinary! But enough of pure nonsense....

I agree it's nonsense to compare the assortment of players in the
SPICE Puff with Showalter, one of the best players in the world in his
era. I think H. N. Pillsbury is a better judge of such matters as
Showalter's ability than P Innes.

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 10:01 pm, nobody wrote:

Tch! - Phil, you have confused ttk5079@ (TK) with jkh001@ (JH)?? Yes, I
know it's easy to do but a personage of your standing & import should
really be @ pains to avoid such crassness. Please post an immediate
apology to Taylor forthwith - thankyou..

(it gets worse)

** ? 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 comments regarding posturing and ****y-posting
seem to indicate that nearly-IMnes was complaining about
one of *his own* postings (while quoting jkh and cursing at

Seems? Is this a fgirlie thing?

TK). Why should PI have to apologize to TK, when the
attack focused on weaknesses in Dr. IMnes' own position?

Your poor Latin does not allow you to appreciate the grandeur of my
apology - and cannot cope with people who can't use usenet protocol or sign
their own name.

Maybe the coward lies within, Kennedy?

No, I say the one owed an apology is Mr. Brennen-- for
the impersonation of a nearly-an-IM 2450 while trashing
NB in multiple newsgroups, including rgc*. Sir IMnes has

**** you jock!

This guy stalks people and excites hatred. Has he ever done anything else

You just voted!

a perfect right to curse TK (for upstaging him in the area

Look Kennedy, you are a big coward can't write his name, but have no fear of
writing names of others.

What a completely American sort of jerk you are.

of real-life chess ratings). Look, Lord IMnes is a very
busy man; he cannot be expected to keep track of all his
critics,

I don't care to track ******s. You do, and that is your legacy here.

Phil Innes

as they probably number in the hundreds. I say
if the nearly-an-IM wants to trash himself for posturing or
****y-posting, let him be... .


-- help bot

another brave anon with a bigger mouth [at a distance] than even Kingston...
zzzzzzz

what a circle jerk!

needless to say these people have rating's-envy like Sam Sloan has
vagina-envy.

quote me.

phil innes

"nobody" wrote in message
...
help bot wrote:

The comments regarding posturing and ****y-posting
seem to indicate that nearly-IMnes was complaining about
one of *his own* postings (while quoting jkh and cursing at
TK). Why should PI have to apologize to TK, when the
attack focused on weaknesses in Dr. IMnes' own position?

Devoid of your fanciful convolutions helpnot, the ineluctable fact is
Phil blundered badly in so confusing jkh's drivel with a TK post. The
onus now rests with Phil to manfully 'own his words' & apologise to TK
for his stupid behaviour..




No, I say the one owed an apology is Mr. Brennen-- for
the impersonation of a nearly-an-IM 2450 while trashing
NB in multiple newsgroups, including rgc*. Sir IMnes has
a perfect right to curse TK (for upstaging him in the area
of real-life chess ratings). Look, Lord IMnes is a very
busy man; he cannot be expected to keep track of all his
critics, as they probably number in the hundreds. I say
if the nearly-an-IM wants to trash himself for posturing or
****y-posting, let him be... .

-- help bot