| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:44 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (16 Nov 2006 19:44:06 -0800):
7 ... Phil Innes inverted intellectual moves by beginning
7 with a reference to the Nottingham tournament and then
7 later typing in Hastings 1935. One sees nothing here
7 to match NM Kingston's invention ...
_
Larry Parr leaves out the detail that Phil Innes attempted to
explain his mistake by claiming that he had "followed" a
"change" by Taylor Kingston:
_
"... I clearly wrote nottingham the first time, then
[Taylor Kingston] changed it, and i suppose i
followed that without much notice, since [his]
posts don't contain much of facts as such. ..."
- Phil Innes (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT)
_
Taylor Kingston understandably disputed the Phil Innes
explanation:
_
"... The subject of Hastings 1935 was not
introduced in this thread until Phil Innes posted
'Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935' on
11/11/2006. ..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006
08:11:50 -0800)
_
An inspection of Google records shows Phil Innes changing
from Nottingham to Hastings and Taylor Kingston reacting
to the Phil Innes "Hastings" note:
_
"... By 1936 Lasker only placed 8th at
Nottingham ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006
15:48:49 GMT)
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
_
"... The only time [Lasker] played in any Hastings
tournament was in 1895. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800)
_
Larry Parr wrote (16 Nov 2006 19:44:06 -0800):
7 ... if you have to invent non-existent persons to write
7 praise of yourself, something is wrong. ...
_
I am still waiting for Larry Parr to identify the "others"
who supposedly agreed with him on the "highlighted"
and "singled out" controversy:
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. He simply selected a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the
failure of GM Soltis to provide such information as
the round in which the game was played" - Louis
Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
_
Here is my response to the Phil Innes note that Larry
Parr quoted:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Lasker and Alekhine - Nottingham, init!
Date: 15 Nov 2006 09:06:40 -0800
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT):
7 ... it was kingston who wrote of hastings, then he
7 wrote lasker never came 8th. ...
_
I wrote (14 Nov 2006 15:59:49 -0800):
7 As far is I can tell, it was Phil Innes who first referred
7 (on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT) to the idea "that
7 Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935". ...
7 ...
7 [On 11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800, Taylor Kingston
7 wrote that] "... Lasker never finished SOLE 8th in any
7 tournament ever. ..." (Emphasis added.)
7 ...
7 Some actual quotes:
7
7 "... By 1936 Lasker only placed 8th at
7 Nottingham ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006
7 15:48:49 GMT)
7
7 "... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
7 8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
7 11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
7
7 "... Another Innes historical fiasco and/or fabrication.
7 Lasker never finished sole 8th in any tournament ever.
7 The only time he played in any Hastings tournament
7 was in 1895. His one 1935 tournament was in Moscow,
7 where he finished 3rd, as I posted here earlier, quite
7 outstanding for a man of 66. ..." - Taylor Kingston
7 (11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800)
7 ...
_
Snipping all of the above except the first two lines of the
11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800 Taylor Kingston quote
(and failing to clearly indicate that the two lines were a
quote of Taylor Kingston), Phil Innes wrote (Wed,
15 Nov 2006 15:18:59 GMT):
7 Another misrepresentative post by Blair who almost
7 like to cheat a bit, since I never said he came SOLE
7 8th, ever.
_
I correctly presented what Phil Innes wrote on Fri,
10 Nov 2006 15:48:49 GMT and Sat, 11 Nov 2006
21:36:57 GMT about Lasker placing "8th". See above.
It is not my fault if Phil Innes snips that information.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:18:59 GMT):
7 I started and finished with Nottingham, and became
7 bemused in the middle when some reprobate switched
7 the subject to Hastings.
_
I would not want to say anything about whether or not
the person was a "reprobate", but, as far as I can tell,
it was Phil Innes who "switched the subject to Hastings"
on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT. See the above
quotes that were snipped by Phil Innes.
_
I wrote (14 Nov 2006 15:59:49 -0800):
7 ... Some actual quotes:
7
7 "... here is the cross table for the [Nottingham 1936]
7 tournament. Seems like Lasker did not only come 8th,
7 but came last! ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 13 Nov 2006
7 21:28:46 GMT)
7
7 "... You present only about half of [the crosstable].
7 Nottingham 1936 had a field of 15, not 8. ... Lasker
7 did not finish last. ... Lasker finished =7-8th, tied
7 with Flohr, not 8th. To say '8th' means sole 8th. ..."
7 - Taylor Kingston (13 Nov 2006 16:30:58 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:18:59 GMT):
7 The lashing-violet has spoke.
7
7 Perhaps he should complain to St. Martin's Press so
7 they can update their records, Kingston even says he
7 has their book!
7
7 If they continue to permit Sunnocks to say 8th in their
7 encyclopedia, perhaps he will suggest she too is a
7 murderer, peyote-crazed, a Mussolini...
_
Is St. Martin's Press likely to be interested? Hasn't the
encyclopedia been out of print for a long time?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:18:59 GMT):
7 Blair could also write them to say they are guilty, in
7 his opinion, of perpetuating a 'historical fiasco and/or
7 fabrication'. ...
_
Again, that was a quote of Taylor Kingston (as I clearly
indicated in the part of my note that Phil Innes snipped).
Moreover, Taylor Kingston was reacting to the Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT Phil Innes note that referred
to Lasker coming "8th at Hastings in 1935". As I
understand it, the encyclopedia did not not say "at
Hastings in 1935".
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|