| Taylor Kingston 2006-11-19, 8:43 pm |
| I repost to correct some typos in my earlier post:
On Nov 13, 4:28 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't think so either, he did play in the 1895 Hastings. I think it was
> the Nottingham tournament, since isn't that what I wrote originally?
No, it is not. Here is what you posted on 11 November 2006, 4:36 PM:
"what is this contention that Kingston has? He negatively protrayed
[sic]
the emigree [sic] Russian Alekhine, who was WORLD CHAMPION and
//dominated// the Euro scene 1923-39 [sic], to effect this report, but
also CUT my notice that
Lasker came 8th [sic] at Hastings in 1935 [sic] ..."
quote:
> It certainly is what Sunnocks wrote.
It seems you misquoted Sunnucks, besides spelling her name three
different ways.
quote:
> Here - I found my entry for 11/12/2006, typos and all
> Lasker came 5th at Zurich in 1934.
> 3rd, and half a point behind the winners at Moscow 1935. [an outstanding
> achievement, BTW, for a man of 66 years old, scoring 66% result.
> 6th at Moscowm 1936.
> 8th at Nottingham 1936.
That is not the post to which I referred. Again, this is the post to
which I referred, which you posted on 11/11/2006, not the 11/12 date of
the above:
"what is this contention that Kingston has? He negatively protrayed
the
emigree Russian Alekhine, who was WORLD CHAMPION and //dominated// the
Euro scene 1923-39, to effect this report, but also CUT my notice that
LASKER CAME 8TH AT HASTINGS IN 1935 ..." (emphasis added).
If you meant Nottingham 1936, you should not have written "Hastings
in 1935," and then defended your error so vehemently.
But now even when you talk about the tournament you really meant, you
still get it all wrong. You wrote:
quote:
> And here is the cross table for the tournament. Seems like Lasker did not
> only come 8th, *** BUT CAME LAST! *** (emphasis added)
quote:
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rest Total
quote:
> 1/2 Capablanca * 0 =BD =BD 1 1 =BD =BD 4 6 10 =A3175
> 7/8 Flohr 1 * =BD =BD 0 =BD =BD 1 4 4=BD 8=BD
> 3/5 Fine =BD =BD * =BD =BD =BD =BD 1 4 5=BD 9=BD =A358
> 1/2 Botvinnik =BD =BD =BD * =BD =BD =BD =BD 3=BD 6=BD 10 =A3175
> 6 Alekhine 0 1 =BD =BD * 0 1 =BD 3=BD 5=BD 9
> 3/5 Reshevsky 0 =BD =BD =BD 1 * 0 1 3=BD 6 9=BD =A358
> 3/5 Euwe =BD =BD =BD =BD 0 1 * 0 3 6=BD 9=BD =A358
> 7/8 Lasker =BD 0 0 =BD =BD 0 1 * 2=BD 6 8=BD
Ahem, Phil -- a few important points:
(A) This crosstable pertains to Nottingham 1936, *_not_* Hastings
1935.
(B) You present only about half of it. Nottingham 1936 had a field of
15, not 8. You have completely omitted Vidmar, Tartakower, Bogolyubov,
Tylor, Alexander, Thomas, and Winter.
(C) Lasker did not finish last. He had a plus score, 8=BD-5=BD, only
1=BD points behind the winners. It is impossible to finish last in any
tournament with a plus score.
(D) Lasker finished =3D7-8th, tied with Flohr, not 8th. To say "8th"
means sole 8th.
(E) =3D7th at Nottingham 1936, with a score of +6 -3 =3D5, was pretty
damn good, especially for a man of 67. Ahead of him were:
the reigning world champion
two former world champions
two future world champions
America's two best players, both world title contenders
They were on average 36 years younger, ranging from 20 to 46 years
younger.
I don't know why you seem so eager to make Lasker look bad, but
you're doing a very poor job of it, and to call your research
"slipshod" would be far too complimentary.
|