michael adams wrote in message ...


Quelque sa? comment? qui lui?
Who this (IM E F)quoi?? *''

Rgcm is not a place where I feel like
stating names when it is not essential.
Of the pre-Capablanca players only
Lasker and Rubinstein were successful
against Capablanca and later players.
(Rubinstein was constrained by his health,
though. And still Capablanca had a healthy
respect for Rubinstein).

Agree, yet you will begin repeating the liturgy Wlod..

:-) When I moved pieces around, I forgot
to delete the moved part. Sorry.

Qui\who is this mysterious IM?

:-)

Agree..

It was worthwhile to place my paragraph
twice just to get your double support.


Good post Wlod.


Thank you, Michael. Sorry for
my sloppy editing. Regards,

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 15:05:20 PST):

Fischer ... didn't make up 9:9. It was
used in the preFIDE championship matches.
Alechine had it tougher. Capa-Al match
would be drawn already at the 5:5 score.

_
This is far from being a generally accepted
historical fact. Why is it that the only
books that mention it seem to be ones from
Soviet or Russian authors? Where is there
ANYONE who made this claim before 1959?

The London rules (that contained no 5-5 tie
rule) had been advocated by Capablanca himself
as well as a number of other noted players of
the day. If Capablanca had sought to depart
from his own proposal by requiring someone
challenging him to finish two or more points
ahead of Capablanca, one would think that
there would have been a lot of comment,
particularly from Alekhine who later wrote
at length about the match. It does not seem
likely that such an event could have happened
and only turn up in some Soviet and Russian
books decades later. William Winter, Harry
Golombek, Bernard Cafferty, and William Hartston
have all written accounts of the Capablanca
-Alekhine match that did not include a word
about any 5-5 condition.

"I am not any historian, not even
an amateur historian." - Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)


Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 15:05:20 PST):

In a contrast to Karpov, Alechine didn't
back up. Nor did he try to sway FIDE
or the public opinion that Capablanca's
title should be declared void. No, in a
contrast to Karpov, Alechine didn't grab
the title for nothing, he won it over the
board.

_
As mentioned above, it is far from being an
established historical fact that Alekhine
agreed to a 5-5 condition. Also, even if
he had agreed, it would not have been
comparable to Karpov's 1975 situation. In
1927, there was no F. I. D. E. in control
of the title. We have no way to know what
Alekhine would have done if there had been
a Capablanca 5-5 demand and an F. I. D. E.
in a position to rule that such a demand
would have been unreasonable.

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...

[...]

ALL TITLE MATCHES up to and including the
Fischer-Spasski match had a draw provision.

I got carried away. The above overstatement
is almost certainly false. Sorry. Let me quote
Louis Blair, who loves to quote me as follows:

"I am not any historian, not even
an amateur historian." - Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)

Regards,

Wlod

(Louis Blair) wrote in
message om...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 15:05:20 PST):
Fischer ... didn't make up 9:9. It was used in the preFIDE championship
matches. Alechine had it tougher. Capa-Al match would be drawn already
at the 5:5 score.

This is far from being a generally accepted historical fact.

Dear Mr Blair,

But Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has written it! Who then could doubt it? :-)

Why is it that the only books that mention it seem to be ones from Soviet
or Russian authors? Where is there ANYONE who made this claim before 1959?

Perhaps Mr Holsztynski would care to explain his preferred methods of
'historical research' here?

The London rules (that contained no 5-5 tie rule) had been advocated by
Capablanca himself as well as a number of other noted players of the day.
If Capablanca had sought to depart from his own proposal by requiring someone
challenging him to finish two or more points ahead of Capablanca, one would
think that there would have been a lot of comment, particularly from Alekhine
who later wrote at length about the match. It does not seem likely that such
an event could have happened and only turn up in some Soviet and Russian
books decades later.

For whatever it's worth, as an example of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's methods of
'historical research', in the thread, "Stalin in 1919-20" (which Mr Holsztynski
created), Wlodzimierz Holsztynski cited a Russian website--which, in response,
Simon Spivack ('chapman Billy') characterised as a 'hagiography' of Stalin and
accordingly unreliable as a historical reference--as his *only source* to
support his vehement assertions (which had been expressed to me previously
along with his characteristic ad hominem nonsense) that "Stalin had very
little to do with the 1919-1920 Polish-Soviet Russia War" (23 November 2003).

"I have never read a book where it was suggested that Stalin did
*not* have an important role in the Russo-Polish war of 1920."
--Simon ('chapman Billy', 25 November 2003, "Stalin in 1919-20")

William Winter, Harry Golombek, Bernard Cafferty, and William Hartston
have all written accounts of the Capablanca-Alekhine match that did not
include a word about any 5-5 condition.

But all of those writers were British. Perhaps they all might have been
part of a British conspiracy to confute Wlodzimierz Holsztynski? :-)

"I am not any historian, not even an amateur historian."
- Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (2002-10-01 04:40:37 PST)

As far as I can tell, Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski seems to lack any
academic training in the comparative analysis of historical sources.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2004-01-11 15:05:20 PST):
In a contrast to Karpov, Alechine didn't back up. Nor did he try to sway
FIDE or the public opinion that Capablanca's title should be declared void.
No, in a contrast to Karpov, Alechine didn't grab the title for nothing,
he won it over the board.

As mentioned above, it is far from being an established historical fact that
Alekhine agreed to a 5-5 condition. Also, even if he had agreed, it would
not have been comparable to Karpov's 1975 situation. In 1927, there was no
F. I. D. E. in control of the title. We have no way to know what Alekhine
would have done if there had been a Capablanca 5-5 demand and an F. I. D. E.
in a position to rule that such a demand would have been unreasonable.

Thanks for writing another of your well-researched posts on chess history.

--Nick