Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 12th 10, 07:08 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation

On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:



Do you know of one?


yes, the Soviet School of Chess, by Kotov and Yudovich


in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail? Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings, which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to... indeed, most of this
chapter although ostensibly in Alekhine's name, are evolutions or
illustration of those 'Soviet players who went on to...'

Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see? He already saw a phantom
chapter by Alekhine, by name only. In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres - and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.

There is not a full Alekhine game in the
whole book. There are various Alekhine game fragments, but all
involving non-Soviet opponents, as fas as I could see. There is a draw
with Keres from Bad Nauheim 1936, but at that time Keres was a citizen
of independent Estonia.
* Aside from the game fragments, Alekhine is mainly mentioned as a
founder (along with Chigorin) of the Soviet School of Chess, and a
major influence and shining beacon (his defection notwithstanding) for
the GMs who came after him.


Not quite such a beacon. More a stepping stone on which the authors
trod. And as our Taylor Kingston himself notices, this giant of chess
was not even afforded a full game score.

The title here referenced is the greatest work of political inveigling
into chess ever produced anywhere.

Phil Innes

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 12th 10, 07:35 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation

On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.

Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.

which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."

Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.

He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.

In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.

and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 13th 10, 09:57 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:

On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.

Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.

which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."

Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.

He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.

In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.

and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


I did some further checking on this. Not only does "The Soviet
School of Chess" present not a single Alekhine loss to anyone, not
even to a "Soviet great" (much less to five of them), but it could not
possibly have presented Alekhine losses to five Soviet greats, for the
simple reason that five such games do not exist.
Because he defected from Russia in 1921 and never returned, and
because the USSR let very few of its masters play in Western events
until after World War II, Alekhine ended up playing very few opponents
who could properly be called "Soviet greats." And with those he did,
he lost only one game, against Botvinnik at AVRO 1938.
So not only was our Phil misremembering what "The Soviet School of
Chess" says, he was "remembering" something that never happened at
all.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 12:12 AM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Jan 13, 4:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:





On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:


On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.


Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.


which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."


Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.


He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.


In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.


and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


* I did some further checking on this. Not only does "The Soviet
School of Chess" present not a single Alekhine loss to anyone,


nor win? this greatest of Soviet Players?

not
even to a "Soviet great" (much less to five of them), but it could not
possibly have presented Alekhine losses to five Soviet greats, for the
simple reason that five such games do not exist.


No full games of the greatest Soviet exist in this volume. Taylor
Kingston cut my text and does not answer it. No full games of Alekhine
exist in this volum, et cetera. yawn

* Because he defected from Russia in 1921 and never returned, and
because the USSR let very few of its masters play in Western events
until after World War II, Alekhine ended up playing very few opponents
who could properly be called "Soviet greats."


Taylor Kingston adopts the very perspective as the authors do of
Soviet School, he having apparently read the entire book in the past 5
hours. He excises my note that even the Dover editors warn the public
that what is between these covers is a bunch of bull****.

I don't know why Kingston does this, except to note that he has done
the same before about Botvinnick, Lasker and another Soviet GM known
to have ties to the then KGB.

And with those he did,
he lost only one game, against Botvinnik at AVRO 1938.
* So not only was our Phil misremembering what "The Soviet School of
Chess" says, he was "remembering" something that never happened at
all.


Kingston says as his is usual style, that Alekhine is celebrated as a
Soviet Great by one draw [!] abount which fact he exhibits no
curiosity, being essentially a light-weight reporter of such things,
and that he has not noticed slights to Alekhine in the rest of the
volume.

What is that to me who has thousands of e-mails to considerable
Russian sources including of the Soiviet period.

As usual we have light weight US opinion here as with the Morphy
episode. No-one wants to know nuthin', and they are happy with that.

Somehow Taylor Kingston thinks that the MASSIVE SOVIET PROPAGANDA
represented in the book [which even the editors advise against - but
Kingston cuts away] which represents Alekhine as as proto-force in
Soviet chess, as represented by an incomplete game score which was
drawn. is straight reportage



R




O







F














L







[email protected]







!






!






Phil Innes

  #5   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 12:34 AM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Jan 13, 7:12*pm, ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 13, 4:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:





On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:


On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.


Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.


which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."


Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.


He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.


In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.


and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


* I did some further checking on this. Not only does "The Soviet
School of Chess" present not a single Alekhine loss to anyone,


nor win? this greatest of Soviet Players? *

not
even to a "Soviet great" (much less to five of them), but it could not
possibly have presented Alekhine losses to five Soviet greats, for the
simple reason that five such games do not exist.


No full games of the greatest Soviet exist in this volume. Taylor
Kingston cut my text and does not answer it. No full games of Alekhine
exist in this volum, et cetera. yawn

* Because he defected from Russia in 1921 and never returned, and
because the USSR let very few of its masters play in Western events
until after World War II, Alekhine ended up playing very few opponents
who could properly be called "Soviet greats."


Taylor Kingston adopts the very perspective as the authors do of
Soviet School, he having apparently read the entire book in the past 5
hours. He excises my note that even the Dover editors warn the public
that what is between these covers is a bunch of bull****.

I don't know why Kingston does this, except to note that he has done
the same before about Botvinnick, Lasker and another Soviet GM known
to have ties to the then KGB.

And with those he did,
he lost only one game, against Botvinnik at AVRO 1938.
* So not only was our Phil misremembering what "The Soviet School of
Chess" says, he was "remembering" something that never happened at
all.


Kingston says as his is usual style, that Alekhine is celebrated as a
Soviet Great by one draw [!] abount which fact he exhibits no
curiosity, being essentially a light-weight reporter of such things,
and that he has not noticed slights to Alekhine in the rest of the
volume.

What is that to me who has thousands of e-mails to considerable
Russian sources including of the Soiviet period.

As usual we have light weight US opinion here as with the Morphy
episode. No-one wants to know nuthin', and they are happy with that.

Somehow Taylor Kingston thinks that the MASSIVE SOVIET PROPAGANDA
represented in the book [which even the editors advise against - but
Kingston cuts away] which represents Alekhine as as proto-force in
Soviet chess, as represented by an incomplete game score which was
drawn. is straight reportage

R

* * *O

* * * * * * *F

* * * * * * *L

* * * * * * [email protected]

* * *!

!

Phil Innes


What a joke you are, Phil. Trying to shift ground and change the
subject, as usual, thinking this will somehow erase your gaffe.

The topic is not the propaganda aspect of "The Soviet School of
Chess." Everyone knows it's a piece of propaganda.

The topic I've raised is your claim that in it "alekhine is
mentioned [from memory] 5 times, and with 5 losses to soviet greats."
The plain facts are that neither claim is true. Alekhine is mentioned
dozens of times, not just five, but /none/ (as in zero, zip, zilch) of
his losses are given, whether to "Soviet greats" or others.

And the other obvious facts are that (1) your memory is once again
proven to be seriously flawed, and (2) you are too much of a fool to
admit it.

But at least everyone else here sees what a fool you are.


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 04:11 AM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Jan 13, 7:34*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:12*pm, ChessFire wrote:



On Jan 13, 4:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:


On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.


Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.


which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."


Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.


He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.


In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.


and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


* I did some further checking on this. Not only does "The Soviet
School of Chess" present not a single Alekhine loss to anyone,


nor win? this greatest of Soviet Players? *


not
even to a "Soviet great" (much less to five of them), but it could not
possibly have presented Alekhine losses to five Soviet greats, for the
simple reason that five such games do not exist.


No full games of the greatest Soviet exist in this volume. Taylor
Kingston cut my text and does not answer it. No full games of Alekhine
exist in this volum, et cetera. yawn


* Because he defected from Russia in 1921 and never returned, and
because the USSR let very few of its masters play in Western events
until after World War II, Alekhine ended up playing very few opponents
who could properly be called "Soviet greats."


Taylor Kingston adopts the very perspective as the authors do of
Soviet School, he having apparently read the entire book in the past 5
hours. He excises my note that even the Dover editors warn the public
that what is between these covers is a bunch of bull****.


I don't know why Kingston does this, except to note that he has done
the same before about Botvinnick, Lasker and another Soviet GM known
to have ties to the then KGB.


And with those he did,
he lost only one game, against Botvinnik at AVRO 1938.
* So not only was our Phil misremembering what "The Soviet School of
Chess" says, he was "remembering" something that never happened at
all.


Kingston says as his is usual style, that Alekhine is celebrated as a
Soviet Great by one draw [!] abount which fact he exhibits no
curiosity, being essentially a light-weight reporter of such things,
and that he has not noticed slights to Alekhine in the rest of the
volume.


What is that to me who has thousands of e-mails to considerable
Russian sources including of the Soiviet period.


As usual we have light weight US opinion here as with the Morphy
episode. No-one wants to know nuthin', and they are happy with that.


Somehow Taylor Kingston thinks that the MASSIVE SOVIET PROPAGANDA
represented in the book [which even the editors advise against - but
Kingston cuts away] which represents Alekhine as as proto-force in
Soviet chess, as represented by an incomplete game score which was
drawn. is straight reportage


R


* * *O


* * * * * * *F


* * * * * * *L


* * * * * * [email protected]


* * *!


!


Phil Innes


* What a joke you are, Phil. Trying to shift ground and change the
subject, as usual, thinking this will somehow erase your gaffe.

* The topic is not the propaganda aspect of "The Soviet School of
Chess." Everyone knows it's a piece of propaganda.

* The topic I've raised is your claim that in it "alekhine is
mentioned [from memory] 5 times, and with 5 losses to soviet greats."
The plain facts are that neither claim is true. Alekhine is mentioned
dozens of times, not just five, but /none/ (as in zero, zip, zilch) of
his losses are given, whether to "Soviet greats" or others.

* And the other obvious facts are that (1) your memory is once again
proven to be seriously flawed, and (2) you are too much of a fool to
admit it.

* But at least everyone else here sees what a fool you are.


Most of us also realize Innes doesn't have a memory, Taylor.
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 07:46 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:34:31 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
wrote:


But at least everyone else here sees what a fool you are.


Then, again, perhaps not. Does the phrase "tip of the iceberg" mean
anything to you ?
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 09:11 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation

On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:

On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.


this is the entry which says 'he contributed many new ideas to the
understanding of the initial stage of the game. Moreover, he
discovered a large number of opening systems and variations'?

and then continues to not mention any, except for a poor third move by
Euwe in one game, then another game which for a change we must asume
Euwe was drunk - more featured games are against Steiner [Padena 1932
incomplete]. Then we get the Kecskemet Variation which we are assured
is widely usewd iin tournament play today. We see that Alekhine
obtained an excellent game against Fine. Amsterdam 1938, but this
seems rather to the neglect of Fine's appreciation rather than
anything brilliant by Alekhine. Indeed in the Danish variation we get
to White's ply 4, and in the Vienna to White's ply 6. It goes on like
this, including games against second tier players like Vidmar, where
Alekhine attained 'an active position' at move 8 which is where the
game is abandoned. Deep stuff? In the QBA we have 4 moves and no
further commentary, and against the Colle 3 moves.

ho-hum!

Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.

which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."


And if this is not faint praise then what is it?


Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.


Actually the index contains one game by Alekhine on page 388 - will
you double check your statement?

,yet Alekhine is referenced many times in the text. Perhaps Soviet
Chess does not offer us the results of these games, but ''Greatest
Soviet Player' deserves one game only, and that a draw?

ROFL

He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.


You see a chapter title where Alekhine is soon abandoned.

Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.


Apparently, why? I have the 1961 edition which DOES list Alekhine
Keres on page 388. Unless you insist that you are right, I suggest you
may have erred in your comment here, and surely someone else can
ratify the issue? It say the Alekhine Keres game is on page 202, and
is the entry after Averbakh and before Baine.

In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy.


Then maybe you have the abridged text? Its page 388 in my edition and
is listed under Alekhine's name, and since this is the same as yours.
See above. I wonder if your further or past remarks are therefore
necessary at all - indeed it us difficult to quite assess why you are
addressing this subject.

A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.

I don't know what that means. The game index lists the Keres game, and
no other Alekhine games.

and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant.


Irrelevant to what? This is supposed to be Russia's greatest player -
but as White he get to draw and nothing else? Otherwise we get opening
innovations no longer in use up to about move 6.

Can't you tell this is a way of diminishing Alekhine?

You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details


Actually, please read the book yourself, then research if Alekhine
games in it were wins draws or loses [if may not say so in the book]
then tell us why you thing the 'Soviet Unions' Greatest Player' should
appear with one draw to his credit?

: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


Another slap in the chops for Alekhine - can't even beat a foreigner!

Phil Innes


  #9   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 09:16 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Jan 13, 4:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:





On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:


On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.


Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.


which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."


Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.


He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.


In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.


and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


* I did some further checking on this. Not only does "The Soviet
School of Chess" present not a single Alekhine loss to anyone, not
even to a "Soviet great" (much less to five of them), but it could not
possibly have presented Alekhine losses to five Soviet greats, for the
simple reason that five such games do not exist.


More than 5 Alekhine games are in the book, but no results of the
games are in the book, is that your point?

* Because he defected from Russia in 1921 and never returned, and
because the USSR let very few of its masters play in Western events
until after World War II, Alekhine ended up playing very few opponents
who could properly be called "Soviet greats." And with those he did,
he lost only one game, against Botvinnik at AVRO 1938.
* So not only was our Phil misremembering what "The Soviet School of
Chess" says, he was "remembering" something that never happened at
all.


You mean I am remembering games that Kotov and Yudovich do not give
the results thereof in their own book?

Somehow Kingston has got on his hobby horse again and is becoming
vaguer and vaguer about his own point, if any. There is one reference
to a game in the game index which shows the result as a draw. Other
games do not get indexed neither are the results shown.

Greatest Soviet Chess Player? In a book intended to gull westerners,
the authors can hardly ignore Alekhine, but on the other hand, they
can't praise him either.

That's cold-war chess talk.

Phil Innes
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 14th 10, 09:24 PM posted to soc.culture.russian,alt.history,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Phil Innes' Memory Fails Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation)

On Jan 13, 7:34*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:12*pm, ChessFire wrote:





On Jan 13, 4:57*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 12, 2:35*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 12, 2:08*pm, ChessFire wrote:


On Jan 11, 6:16*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Jan 11, 5:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
in the above example, eg, alekhine is mentioned [from memory] 5 times,
and with 5 losses to soviet 'greats'.


* Our Phil's memory seems to be playing tricks on him again.
* Alekhine is mentioned much more than five times in "The Soviet
School of Chess." There is a 17-page chapter devoted entirely to him.


Not in my edition, perhaps this chapter could be mentioned in more
detail?


* Sure. It starts on page 36, and goes through page 52. It is titled
"Russia's Greatest Player," and it begins "The most gifted of
Chigorin's numerous followers was, of course, Alexander Alekhine
(1892-1946)." It has a photo of Alekhine on page 37.


Unless of course this is a reference to Alekhine and Theory of
Openings,


* That is a sub-section of the chapter, pp. 44-52.


which says directly that 'Soviet players have not stopped at
this [Alekhine's] level, but have gone on to...


* In my edition that passage is on page 43, before the opening theory
sub-section. It is worded slightly differently: "The Soviet Union's
players have always studied Alekhine's games. They have not stopped at
the stage to which Alekhine raised chess theory but have gone
farther ..."


Beyond that, the index lists 27 mentions of him. However, I see no "5
losses to Soviet greats."


What game record does Taylor Kingston see?


* Good grief, Phil, what do you think? The GAME INDEX on pages
388-390. No mention of Alekhine there.


He already saw a phantom chapter by Alekhine, by name only.


* No, Phil. I see a /real/ chapter, as I have already stated.
Apparently you have an abridged edition of the book. Mine is Dover's
1961 unabridged English version of the full original 1958 Russian
work.


In fact the game index cites just
one game Alekhine-Keres -


* As I said, there is no mention of Alekhine in the game index of my
copy. A fragment of Alekhine-Keres, Bad Nauheim 1936 is given, moves
36 thru 48, on pages 202-203 in the chapter on Keres. The game index
does not list fragments, but the fragment is one of the 28 Alekhine
entries in the /name/ index.


and if I am wrong it is because that game
was a draw.


* The result of the game is irrelevant. You're still wrong about the
book showing "5 losses to Soviet greats." If those losses are actually
in the book and I have somehow overlooked them, please give us the
specific details: opponents, dates, venues, page numbers etc. So far
you've mentioned only a draw, not a loss, and at the time Keres was
years away from being a Soviet citizen.


* I did some further checking on this. Not only does "The Soviet
School of Chess" present not a single Alekhine loss to anyone,


nor win? this greatest of Soviet Players? *


not
even to a "Soviet great" (much less to five of them), but it could not
possibly have presented Alekhine losses to five Soviet greats, for the
simple reason that five such games do not exist.


No full games of the greatest Soviet exist in this volume. Taylor
Kingston cut my text and does not answer it. No full games of Alekhine
exist in this volum, et cetera. yawn


* Because he defected from Russia in 1921 and never returned, and
because the USSR let very few of its masters play in Western events
until after World War II, Alekhine ended up playing very few opponents
who could properly be called "Soviet greats."


Taylor Kingston adopts the very perspective as the authors do of
Soviet School, he having apparently read the entire book in the past 5
hours. He excises my note that even the Dover editors warn the public
that what is between these covers is a bunch of bull****.


I don't know why Kingston does this, except to note that he has done
the same before about Botvinnick, Lasker and another Soviet GM known
to have ties to the then KGB.


And with those he did,
he lost only one game, against Botvinnik at AVRO 1938.
* So not only was our Phil misremembering what "The Soviet School of
Chess" says, he was "remembering" something that never happened at
all.


Kingston says as his is usual style, that Alekhine is celebrated as a
Soviet Great by one draw [!] abount which fact he exhibits no
curiosity, being essentially a light-weight reporter of such things,
and that he has not noticed slights to Alekhine in the rest of the
volume.


What is that to me who has thousands of e-mails to considerable
Russian sources including of the Soiviet period.


As usual we have light weight US opinion here as with the Morphy
episode. No-one wants to know nuthin', and they are happy with that.


Somehow Taylor Kingston thinks that the MASSIVE SOVIET PROPAGANDA
represented in the book [which even the editors advise against - but
Kingston cuts away] which represents Alekhine as as proto-force in
Soviet chess, as represented by an incomplete game score which was
drawn. is straight reportage


R


* * *O


* * * * * * *F


* * * * * * *L


* * * * * * [email protected]


* * *!


!


Phil Innes


* What a joke you are, Phil. Trying to shift ground and change the
subject, as usual, thinking this will somehow erase your gaffe.

* The topic is not the propaganda aspect of "The Soviet School of
Chess." Everyone knows it's a piece of propaganda.

* The topic I've raised is your claim that in it "alekhine is
mentioned [from memory] 5 times, and with 5 losses to soviet greats."
The plain facts are that neither claim is true. Alekhine is mentioned
dozens of times, not just five, but /none/ (as in zero, zip, zilch) of
his losses are given, whether to "Soviet greats" or others.


AND NEITHER ARE HIS WINS 'GIVEN'. No results other than the draw are
given. But Taylor Kinston might like to look up elsewhere and then
tell us how many of the games in the book Alekhine lost to Soviet
master. If he can't be bothered then he swallows the 'obvious
propaganda' of the authors wholesale.

* And the other obvious facts are that (1) your memory is once again
proven to be seriously flawed,


Proven by whom? Not you, you lightweight - you have done no research
at all to the results of all the games in the book.

and (2) you are too much of a fool to
admit it.

* But at least everyone else here sees what a fool you are.


Everyone knows you are a ****y bloke, can't wait to call someone else
names. You have always been like this since you first write me in
1999, and if people doubt the existence of secret messages you send in
private then they should observe the basis of your public utterances.
Remember - I have 30 some of your private libels.

So, if I say 'from memory' of the results of the games in the book,
that is an up-front admission I could be wrong! Whereas Taylor
Kingston always full of certainties here takes the truth from the
authors words of the most notorious Soviet chess propaganda book there
ever was, and thinks no further.

I am sorry if I'm wrong, indeed it may only be 4 losses, then again it
could be 6.

Phil Innes
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 75 January 23rd 10 03:45 AM
Innes' Weird Memory Does It Again (was: Russia – The Story of the Greatest Nation) Taylor Kingston[_2_] alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 January 12th 10 07:15 PM
The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F.Kennedy ISBN 0923891900 samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 7 February 12th 08 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017