| Taylor Kingston 2006-11-19, 8:44 pm |
|
On Nov 18, 10:51 pm, "Louis Blair" <l...@blackburn.edu> wrote:
quote:
> 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.
Looking at some other tournaments, I came up with some interesting
results using partial crosstables in the misleading way Phil Innes has
done. For example, this:
Chigorin x 1 1 total: 2-0
Lasker 0 x 1 total: 1-1
Pillsbury 0 0 x total: 0-2
Clearly, we have Chigorin winning and Pillsbury finishing last. What
tournament was this, you ask? None other than Hastings 1895,
Pillsbury's legendary triumph. Harry's overall score was 16=BD-4=BD, but
if we look at just the top three places, as Innes looked only at
Nottingham's top 8, Pillsbury comes last!
Expanding it a bit, we get this:
Pillsbury x 0 0 1 1 1 1 total: 4-2
Chigorin 1 x 1 1 0 0 =BD total: 3=BD-2=BD
Lasker 1 0 x 0 1 1 =BD total: 3=BD-2=BD
Tarrasch 0 0 1 x 1 1 =BD total: 3=BD-2=BD
Steinitz 0 1 0 0 x =BD 1 total: 2=BD-3=BD
Mieses 0 =BD =BD =BD =BD x =BD total: 2=BD-3=BD
Schiffers 0 1 0 0 0 =BD x total: 1=BD-3=BD
In this group, Pillsbury takes 1st, while Schiffers comes last. What
is this really? It's the top six finishers at Hastings 1895, plus
Mieses. Despite actually coming in 20th overall (out of 22), Mieses had
a pretty good score against the top 6, losing only to Pillsbury. So
this makes him look better than Schiffers, and equal with Steinitz, the
very recently dethroned world champion. In fact Steinitz scored 13-8
and Schiffers 12-9 overall, while Mieses scored only 7=BD-13=BD.
Statistics don't lie, do they?
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT):
> 7 ... but again it is my fault for not listing all the players!
It sure is, Phil.
quote:
> 7 sure, he didn't come last of all - but last after all these
> 7 people who Kingston reported he had dealt with previously
> 7 so as to have championed over them ...
Those who finished ahead of Lasker at Nottingham 1936 were Botvinnik,
Capablanca, Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky and Alekhine. I have written nothing
in this thread which "dealt with [them] previously" as a group, nor
anything that "championed [Lasker] over them." Our Phil is fabricating
again.
The group I dealt with in this thread were players considered
"hypermodern" in their styles and/or opening repertoires: Nimzovitch,
R=E9ti, Tartakower, Bogolyubov, Alekhine, Gr=FCnfeld, and possibly Euwe.
I noted that Lasker had a very good career record against them, despite
Innes' claim that Lasker could not "span" hypermodernism (whatever
"spanning" is supposed to mean in that context). The top six at
Nottingham includes at most only two of that group (if we include
Euwe), while two others were below him (Tartakower and Bobolyubov).
Botvinnik, Capablanca, Fine and Reshevsky did not enter into the
discussion of Lasker-vs.-the-hypermoderns at all.
So, not content to manipulate crosstables, our Phil resorts to his
old tactic of making up statements that never existed. To use Larry
Parr's phrase: pee-tee-ful.
|