Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 02:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)


RayLopez99 wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:08 am, wrote:
So you think the Russians never rigged a chess tournament, but the
British did? Rrrriiiight. You are seriously confused, Ray.


No, I think you cannot prove it based on an autobiography.

I'm sure he had his fans. As did Bernie Madoff when everything was
going swimmingly.


What a nasty little jerk you are, Ray. For no reason, you insult the
memory of a fine gentleman. By your own admission you know nothing
about Thomas, hadn't heard of him until a few days ago, yet you feel
entitled to cast aspersions on him.


I'm just saying it's possible, that's all.


And it's possible that you embezzle from your employer, sell heroin
to children, perform murder for hire, and serve as a catamite. But I
wouldn't allege that unless supporting facts were known.


Catamite--I learned a new word. You seem to know a lot about
pederastry for some queer reason.


How likely is it that this
fine gentleman excelled in sports of the body as well as the mind?


It's quite rare for someone to do this. That's one reason Sir George
was a such a noteworthy person, besides being an honorable gentleman.


Ah yes, the British fondness for Shakespere and his extremes. Good
and evil. Right and wrong. No shades of grey. A receipe for
disappointment, but I digress. So Sir Thomas, or Sir George I guess,
walked on water and raised the dead.


It's possible in that day and age that either the competition is weak
or the judges were bribed. Do you have any of his games? To the
extent they are not agreed in advance (fixed), we can run them through
Fritz and see how accurate the play was.


Here are a few of Sir George's better games. I think even you, Ray,
will recognize at least some of the opponents' names:

[Event "Hastings 3435"]
[Site "Hastings"]
[Date "1934.12.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"]
[Black "Thomas, George Alan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D61"]
[PlyCount "106"]
[EventDate "1934.12.27"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]


I did run this through Fritz. What happened was a routine way weaker
players (Sir George) win against stronger players (Capa)--using
tactics, that is, by the stronger player making a tactical mistake--
the stronger player loses the game, not that the weaker player wins
the game. In this game it was the clear error 21. Bxb5, which loses a
pawn to the skewer by the queen. Capa was rusty says Wiki: "In 1934,
Capablanca resumed serious play. He had begun dating Olga Chgodaeva
(Russian: ), whom he eventually married in 1938, and
she inspired him to play again. Capablanca's first event in more than
three years was Hastings 1934-35, a very strong tournament, where he
placed fourth with 5 1/2/9, a point behind the three joint winners Max
Euwe, Salo Flohr, and George Alan Thomas, but ahead of Mikhail
Botvinnik and Andor Lilienthal."

And in the same tourney Sir George beat a still weak and developing
Botvinnik.

However, looking over some of his games at the excellent online site
chessgames.com, I will admit Sir G does appear to be a stronger player
than I thought; it's funny his name does not crop up so often. Below
are some of his famous victories, and I doubt he could have arranged
all these matches. So I take back what I said about him fixing
matches, but not because of anything you said TK, rather my own
analysis.

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
G A Thomas vs E Sapira, 1933 1-0
Bogoljubov vs G A Thomas, 1922 1/2-1/2
G A Thomas vs Alekhine, 1936 1/2-1/2
G A Thomas vs Spielmann, 1923 1-0
Capablanca vs G A Thomas, 1929 1/2-1/2
G A Thomas vs Yates, 1922 1-0
G A Thomas vs Tartakower, 1932 1-0
G A Thomas vs Marshall, 1930 1-0
G A Thomas vs Reti, 1925 1-0
Capablanca vs G A Thomas, 1934 0-1

BTW, in the match " G A Thomas vs Alekhine, 1936 1/2-1/2", Alekhine is
clearly winning at the end (up two pawns) but agreed to a draw anyway,
possibly due to time pressure or he was being sporting to the
"possible cheat" Sir G. ;-)

RL


Are you referring to the game Thomas-Alekhine from Hastings 1936,
drawn in 77 moves? In the final position, White has Rook and two pawns
versus Rook and one (all passed), but the position is clearly drawn.
Alekhine annotated it quite thoroughly in the tournament book, and you
really ought to read it before making this kind of silly comment.
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 12:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 138
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 16, 10:34*pm, wrote:
RayLopez99 wrote:


BTW, in the match " G A Thomas vs Alekhine, 1936 1/2-1/2", Alekhine is
clearly winning at the end (up two pawns)


Alekhine and Thomas played to a draw six times overall in serious
competition. There is no drawn game between them from 1936, or any
year, where at the end either player is "up two pawns." Their only
game fitting that description is Thomas-Alekhine, Hastings 1922, but
Alekhine won that game in 83 moves.

but agreed to a draw anyway,
possibly due to time pressure or he was being sporting to the
"possible cheat" Sir G. ;-)


Are you referring to the game Thomas-Alekhine from Hastings 1936,
drawn in 77 moves?


I can only guess he means Nottingham 1936. That game was indeed a
draw in 77 moves, but it's Thomas who is up material at the end, not
Alekhine. They played one other game that was definitely in 1936, at
Podebrady (drawn in 41 moves), and another at Hastings 1936-37 that
may have been played in 1936, Alekhine winning in 48 moves.

In the final position, White has Rook and two pawns
versus Rook and one (all passed), but the position is clearly drawn.
Alekhine annotated it quite thoroughly in the tournament book,


Quite so; the annotations run to about 4 pages.

and you
really ought to read it before making this kind of silly comment.


Mr. Lopez is not the least concerned with factual accuracy, only
with being an offensive troll.
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 03:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 8:59*am, wrote:

* Mr. Lopez is not the least concerned with factual accuracy, only
with being an offensive troll.



Troll-guy was identified as such eons ago by a
much quicker-witted chap than the slowish lad,
TK. Even so, one must admit when a correct
diagnosis is made-- congratulations and all that.


-- help bot



  #4   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 06:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 16, 10:34*pm, wrote:

Are you referring to the game Thomas-Alekhine from Hastings 1936,
drawn in 77 moves? In the final position, White has Rook and two pawns
versus Rook and one (all passed), but the position is clearly drawn.
Alekhine annotated it quite thoroughly in the tournament book, and you
really ought to read it before making this kind of silly comment.


Don't recall the game moves, but I'm referring to the game where, as
you describe, Black is up two pawns at the end according to Fritz.
While that's not an automatic win, usually it's enough, though I grant
that with rook endings that's not enough to win at times.

RL

  #5   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 06:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 8:59*am, wrote:
Are you referring to the game Thomas-Alekhine from Hastings 1936,
drawn in 77 moves?



George Alan Thomas vs Alexander Alekhine
Nottingham 1936 Sicilian Defense: Dragon. Classical Variation
(B72) 1/2-1/2

* I can only guess he means Nottingham 1936. That game was indeed a
draw in 77 moves, but it's Thomas who is up material at the end, not
Alekhine.


Yes, and as another poster pointed out, the game is a pure draw.
Hence Alekhine, the stronger player, was able to draw despite being
down material. Proves my point, regardless of what you think of
"trolling".

RL


  #6   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 06:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 11:33*am, help bot wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:59*am, wrote:

* Mr. Lopez is not the least concerned with factual accuracy, only
with being an offensive troll.


* Troll-guy was identified as such eons ago by a
much quicker-witted chap than the slowish lad,
TK. * * Even so, one must admit when a correct
diagnosis is made-- congratulations and all that.

* -- help bot


What is your problem bot? Nobody posts here anymore, and now that a
new guy (me) comes along, you gang up on him. You want to be the only
person in this forum reading your verbal diahhrea?

RL
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 07:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 2:35*pm, RayLopez99 wrote:

* Mr. Lopez is not the least concerned with factual accuracy, only
with being an offensive troll.


* Troll-guy was identified as such eons ago by a
much quicker-witted chap than the slowish lad,
TK. * * Even so, one must admit when a correct
diagnosis is made-- congratulations and all that.


What is your problem bot? *



No problem, troll-guy; I just could not help bot
leap at the chance to point out how s-l-o-w TK
was in figuring things out. (There is a famous
quote of LP in which TK's daftness is noted,
even by another daft and dim chap.)

BTW, when you write that somebody is up
two pawns, that generally means he has two
pawns more. If you actually mean that Fritz
has him up by two points, the term "points" is
much prefered; in fact, it is the only correct
term, since /pawns/ and /points/ have two
different meanings.

So, when the rgc pedants jump you for not
having your facts straight, the only person you
have to blame for this is that guy you see in
the mirror-- yes, the ugly troll guy himself. If
you don't like being identified, then all you have
to do is become much more clever at disguise
(think Inspector Clousseau).


-- help bot




  #8   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 07:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 382
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 2:35*pm, RayLopez99 wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:33*am, help bot wrote:

On Mar 17, 8:59*am, wrote:


* Mr. Lopez is not the least concerned with factual accuracy, only
with being an offensive troll.


* Troll-guy was identified as such eons ago by a
much quicker-witted chap than the slowish lad,
TK. * * Even so, one must admit when a correct
diagnosis is made-- congratulations and all that.


* -- help bot


What is your problem bot?


Bot is actually complementing you. If you really meant the comments
you made about Thomas, then, well, you pretty much have to be an
idiot. On the other hand if you are only trolling, then you might
well be of normal intelligence, whatever your other problems.

So thank the nice bot.

William Hyde

  #9   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 11:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 3:35*pm, William Hyde wrote:

Bot is actually complementing you. *If you really meant the comments
you made about Thomas, then, well, you pretty much have to be an
idiot. *On the other hand if you are only trolling, then you might
well be of normal intelligence, whatever your other problems.

So *thank the nice bot.


I see.

RL

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 18th 09, 08:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Chess Masters Who Were Eminent in Other Fields (was: Ken Rogoff)

On Mar 17, 7:03*pm, RayLopez99 wrote:

Bot is actually complementing you. *If you really meant the comments
you made about Thomas, then, well, you pretty much have to be an
idiot. *On the other hand if you are only trolling, then you might
well be of normal intelligence, whatever your other problems.


So *thank the nice bot.


I see.



That logic fails in that my comments had nothing
to do with troll-guy's intelligence... but it makes for
a good story!

--

Here's an example of what I was talking about,
of a troll who has done a commendable job of
fooling people into thinking he's merely insane,
and not a lowly under-bridge dweller: Mr. Sloan.

As one can easily see, Mr. Sloan constantly
creates new threads-- mainly about himself or
his obsession with Susan Polgar, with getting
elected to the USCF board, or about his sexual
fantasies. Anybody else who made the sort of
wacky comments Mr. Sloan is known for would
be classified as a troll; but this guy is crafty; he
has created /the illusion of insanity/, and this
shields him from being identified as just a
common troll!

Well, it's a lot of work to maintain this illusion
year after year, but Mr. Sloan is nothing if not a
tireless worker, determined to do whatever it
takes to keep the people convinced of his utter
lunacy. In fact, I would say that Mr. Sloan is
nearly in a class by himself, rivaled only by the
Great Dr. IMnes (who, unsurprisingly, has
taken a very similar approach in using insanity
to disguise himself). Be forewarned: this is a
full-time job; not something to be undertaken
lightly. There are hefty troll union dues to be
paid, and once accepted in, it's a bear to get
back out.


-- help bot



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 09:20 AM
An old article about early chess computers! Quite amusing rant. [email protected] rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 January 21st 07 06:32 AM
Wikipedia Biography of Eric Schiller Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 2 December 22nd 05 08:02 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 19th 05 05:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 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