| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:44 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:28:46 GMT):
7 ... And here is the cross table for the [Nottingham 1936]
7 tournament. Seems like Lasker did not only come 8th, but
7 came last!
7
7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rest Total
7
7 1/2 Capablanca * 0 =BD =BD 1 1 =BD =BD 4 6 10 =A3175
7
7 7/8 Flohr 1 * =BD =BD 0 =BD =BD 1 4 4=BD 8=BD
7
7 3/5 Fine =BD =BD * =BD =BD =BD =BD 1 4 5=BD 9=BD =A358
7
7 1/2 Botvinnik =BD =BD =BD * =BD =BD =BD =BD 3=BD 6=BD 10 =A3175
7
7 6 Alekhine 0 1 =BD =BD * 0 1 =BD 3=BD 5=BD 9
7
7 3/5 Reshevsky 0 =BD =BD =BD 1 * 0 1 3=BD 6 9=BD =A358
7
7 3/5 Euwe =BD =BD =BD =BD 0 1 * 0 3 6=BD 9=BD =A358
7
7 7/8 Lasker =BD 0 0 =BD =BD 0 1 * 2=BD 6 8=BD
7 ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (13 Nov 2006 16:30:58 -0800):
7 ... You present only about half of [the Nottingham 1936
7 crosstable]. Nottingham 1936 had a field of 15, not 8. You
7 have completely omitted Vidmar, Tartakower, Bogolyubov,
7 Tylor, Alexander, Thomas, and Winter. ... Lasker did not
7 finish last. ... Lasker finished =3D7-8th, tied with Flohr, not 8th.
7 ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:52:54 GMT):
7 ... let me ... suggest that Lasker is placed last in this
7 group, since the cross-table reveals Flohr's score contains
7 2 wins while Lasker had only 1 win.
7
7 Does anyone know if this was indeed the determining
7 factor of placement at Nottingham, or even if it was
7 generally in use at the time, and
_
The above list is not in order of "placement". If it were,
Capablanca and Botvinnik would have been at the top,
each with 10 points. They would have been followed by
Fine, Reshevsky, and Euwe, each with 9=BD points. And
so on.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:52:54 GMT):
7 [Does anyone know] if the prize money [such as it was]
7 was distributed all the way to 8th place?
_
If Phil Innes looks again at the information that he himself
posted, he will see "=A3175" listed for Capablanca and
Botvinnik (tied for 1st and 2nd place), "=A358" listed for
Fine, Reshevsky, and Euwe (tied for 3rd, 4th, and 5th
place). If I understand Bill Wall correctly, there was an
additional 200 pounds that was divided among the rest
of the players in proportion to their scores (see
http://www.geocities.com/siliconval...378/notting.htm)
meaning (I think) that Lasker and Flohr both received an
amount that was approximately equal to 30 pounds.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 ... is anyone really thinking? Kingston and Blair want
7 that to be 7/8th from 15.
_
I have expressed no such opinion.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 But I did provide the Nottingham cross-table, which
7 just had the top 8 players in it
_
"... [Phil Innes presented] only about half of
[the crosstable]. Nottingham 1936 had a field
of 15, not 8. ..." - Taylor Kingston (13 Nov 2006
16:30:58 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 and the result of the tournament against each other
7 - not 7 other players. I don't think this was one big
7 group, but group A, since the scores don't reflect
7 anything else.
_
Taylor Kingston has provided information indicating
that every player played 14 games (presumably one
against each of the other participants in the
tournament):
_
"1-2. Capablanca, Botvinnik: 10-4
3-5. Fine, Reshevsky, Euwe: 9=BD-4=BD
6. Alekhine: 9-5
7-8. Lasker, Flohr: 8=BD-5=BD
9. Vidmar: 6-8
10-11. Tartakower, Bogolyubov: 5=BD-8=BD
12. Tylor: 4=BD-9=BD
13. Alexander: 3=BD-10=BD
14. Thomas: 3-11
15. Winter: 2=BD-11=BD"
- Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006 12:13:41 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 It also seem that Hooper may have been reporting
7 accurately that Lasker came last,
_
Where is there a quote of Hooper "reporting" that Lasker
"came last"? Previously, we had Phil Innes tell us:
_
"SEEMS LIKE Lasker ... came last!" - Phil
Innes (Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:28:46 GMT)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 since the other player with 7/8 had more wins than Lasker.
_
Phil Innes seems to be dealing with incomplete information.
_
"Lasker beat Tyler, Winter, Thomas, Alexander, Bogoljubov,
Euwe
He lost to Flohr, Reshevsky, Fine
Drew with Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Tartakower,
Vidmar
_
Six wins, three losses, five draws." - Mike Murray
(Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:46:10 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 Now - I really don't care very much to be right since
7 whatever happened in 1936 has no effect on me whatever,
7 but if we are trying to determine something about the 1920s
7 and 1930s let's actually look at the reports we have to
7 determine what they mean - since discussion practice is
7 also useful to reporting in 2006, instead of calling people
7 mentally imbalanced for this report on Nottingham, or
7 whatever.
_
"Whatever" includes, for example, Phil Innes attempting to
explain one of his mistakes 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)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT):
7 Just another storm in a t-cup - no one is mentally
7 unbalanced, but instead, rather out of sorts from lack
7 of practice in discussing things in an open and civil way.
7 There are no demons here, no devils, peyote-crazed
7 un-balanced psychopaths, and Mussolini didn't show up.
7
7 Its just us turkeys.
_
"... the guy is a shit." - Phil Innes (Thu,
02 Nov 2006 21:22:00 GMT)
_
"... you idiotic reprobate!" - Phil Innes
((Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:55:59 GMT)
_
"... writes as a nincompoop!" - Phil Innes
(Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:25:38 GMT)
|