quote:

---

> Objectively, who is the best chess player of all time?
>
> There are several ways to argue this question. You can compare players to
> their peers, to some artificial intergenerational standard, or you can
> just be a good-old American anti-commie Joe and say, "Fischer."
>
> Jeff Sonas compares players across generations through a mathematical
> algorithm which, I admit, I don't understand. I've only half-bought his
> theory that Sammy Reshevsky was a 2700 player.
>
> What is a 2700 player? According to the FIDE rating list Ruslan Ponomariov
> is rated 2704. What do you think would be the result of a match between
> Pono and Sammy Reshevsky in his prime (according to Sonas, that would be
> in the mid-1930s)? I'd say 9-1 in favor of Pono. I would not be surprised
> if it went 10-0. How about a Fischer (ca. 1972) -Pono match? Bobby would
> be lucky to score 3 points, maybe 3.5. Again, I would not be surprised if
> it went 8-2 or 9-1. Anyone who does not believe that is delusional.
>
> In his recent Chessbase.com article
> (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2670), Jeff Sonas writes
> that Topalov's current performance in San Luis is only the eigth best
> tournament performance (TPR) record of all time. I've been following
> Sonas' writing for some time now and I believe he's finally crossed into
> the twilight zone.
>
> For example, he lists Topo's recent 7/8 (88% vs. 2736 FIDE) right behind
> Kasparov's 10/13 (77% vs. 2737) at Linares 1993. I don't understand how
> this is mathematically possible, unless you attribute immensely greater
> statistical weight to 13 game tournaments compared with eight round
> tournaments. Incredibly, Topo's recent performance pales by comparison (in
> Sonas' eyes) even to Emanuel Lasker's (!!!) performance in London, 1898
> (!!!) in which he scored 18/22 against an average opponent rating of 2692
> (!!!).
>
> Now really, Jeff. Do you think *anyone* in Londaon, 1898 could hold their
> own against *anyone* today rated 2692, or even 2592? how about 2492? The
> standard of play, the openings knowledge, has progressed to the point
> where these comparisons become absurd. It's safe to say that any 2500
> player would whoop Lasker and all his London, 1892 opponents into pierogi
> filling.
>
> That's not to belittle Lasker and his contemporaries, but let's put all of
> this into perspective. On an objective scale with Anand around 2780,
> Lasker was possibly 2400 strength.

quote:

---

> Either one of two old standards: Capablanca or Morphy.
>
> Anybody with the pure, natural ability to see the board the way these two
> did would certainly eclipse any player today. This is, of course,
> assuming that the hypothetical match-up would take place on even ground.
> That is, Capa and/or Morphy would been given the opportunity to review all
> the advances in theory that've happened since they've been pushing up
> daisies. After all, Topo's surely analyzed the games of both players, but
> neither had ever seen his.

quote:

---

> Nothing could ever be proven in this department and even the greatest
> algorhythm of all time could only guesstimate the result. I could be
> totally wrong in my theory because let's face it: these two are legends
> because chess was so much more popular then and so much more was written
> about it that their names and games have lasted through the years.
> Nothing will ever change that. And I seriously doubt that in 100 years,
> regardless of his strength, rating, or accomplishments, Topo's name will
> just fall among the ranks of also-rans in the data banks of ChessBase 157.
> Kasparov's and Fischer's legacy will probably prove to be as close as one
> can get to the legendary status of Capa and Morphy due to their charisma
> and the sheer volume of literature written about them, but Topo's bound
> for insignificance, IMHO, unless he shoots a world leader or something.
>

quote:

---

> Objectively, who is the best chess player of all time?
>
> There are several ways to argue this question. You can compare players to
> their peers, to some artificial intergenerational standard, or you can just
> be a good-old American anti-commie Joe and say, "Fischer."
>
> Jeff Sonas compares players across generations through a mathematical
> algorithm which, I admit, I don't understand. I've only half-bought his
> theory that Sammy Reshevsky was a 2700 player.
>
> What is a 2700 player? According to the FIDE rating list Ruslan Ponomariov
> is rated 2704. What do you think would be the result of a match between Pono
> and Sammy Reshevsky in his prime (according to Sonas, that would be in the
> mid-1930s)? I'd say 9-1 in favor of Pono. I would not be surprised if it
> went 10-0. How about a Fischer (ca. 1972) -Pono match? Bobby would be lucky
> to score 3 points, maybe 3.5. Again, I would not be surprised if it went 8-2
> or 9-1. Anyone who does not believe that is delusional.
>

quote:

---

>
> Now really, Jeff. Do you think *anyone* in Londaon, 1898 could hold their
> own against *anyone* today rated 2692, or even 2592? how about 2492? The
> standard of play, the openings knowledge, has progressed to the point where
> these comparisons become absurd. It's safe to say that any 2500 player would
> whoop Lasker and all his London, 1892 opponents into pierogi filling.

quote:

---

> That's not to belittle Lasker and his contemporaries, but let's put all of
> this into perspective. On an objective scale with Anand around 2780, Lasker
> was possibly 2400 strength.

quote:

---

> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
>
>
> Did you ever hear the expression "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
> I'm not sure if your main point is that 100 or so years of theoretical
> refinement and the discovery of many decisive opening innovations has
> tipped the balance, or whether you're arguing that modern GM's are just
> objectively stronger, but I'd take issue with either point.
>
> It's slightly disingenuous to argue that modern GM's are stronger
> because they have more knowledge of openings and so on anyway. I think
> historical ratings assumes that such weighted variables are discounted.
> I think you can say the same about ie:Ponomariov knows the games of
> Capa... Capa doesn't know the games of Ponomariev.
>
> I saw in a historical rating list, Morphy 2550, this is surely wrong
> and based no doubt on the fact that Morphy played little class
> opposition. Would anybody seriously suggest that Morphy would go down
> in flames to a modern 2550? I seriously doubt it.
>
> The earlier masters, such figures as Tarrasch, Lasker, Nimzowitsch and
> so on virtually created the modern game. It was their intellect that
> created the principles we know today. Perhaps they would be ignorant of
> some tactical subtlety that a computer found in the Richter- Rauzer,
> does that mean they're not as good? Are you seriously suggesting that a
> 2500 player today would just crush Alekhine?,....or Capablanca...? lol
> at that. It's going to remain a hypothetical question unfortunatly, but
> I know who my money would be on.
>
>
>
> You must be joking.

quote:

---

> Did you ever hear the expression "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
> I'm not sure if your main point is that 100 or so years of theoretical
> refinement and the discovery of many decisive opening innovations has
> tipped the balance, or whether you're arguing that modern GM's are just
> objectively stronger, but I'd take issue with either point.

quote:

---

> It's slightly disingenuous to argue that modern GM's are stronger
> because they have more knowledge of openings and so on anyway.

quote:

---

> I saw in a historical rating list, Morphy 2550, this is surely wrong
> and based no doubt on the fact that Morphy played little class
> opposition. Would anybody seriously suggest that Morphy would go down
> in flames to a modern 2550? I seriously doubt it.

quote:

---

>. Perhaps they would be ignorant of
> some tactical subtlety that a computer found in the Richter- Rauzer,
> does that mean they're not as good?

quote:

---

>
> You must be joking.

quote:

---

> Objectively, who is the best chess player of all time?
>
> There are several ways to argue this question. You can compare players to
> their peers, to some artificial intergenerational standard, or you can
> just be a good-old American anti-commie Joe and say, "Fischer."
>
> Jeff Sonas compares players across generations through a mathematical
> algorithm which, I admit, I don't understand. I've only half-bought his
> theory that Sammy Reshevsky was a 2700 player.
>
> What is a 2700 player? According to the FIDE rating list Ruslan Ponomariov
> is rated 2704. What do you think would be the result of a match between
> Pono and Sammy Reshevsky in his prime (according to Sonas, that would be
> in the mid-1930s)? I'd say 9-1 in favor of Pono. I would not be surprised
> if it went 10-0. How about a Fischer (ca. 1972) -Pono match? Bobby would
> be lucky to score 3 points, maybe 3.5. Again, I would not be surprised if
> it went 8-2 or 9-1. Anyone who does not believe that is delusional.
>
> In his recent Chessbase.com article
> (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2670), Jeff Sonas writes
> that Topalov's current performance in San Luis is only the eigth best
> tournament performance (TPR) record of all time. I've been following
> Sonas' writing for some time now and I believe he's finally crossed into
> the twilight zone.
>
> For example, he lists Topo's recent 7/8 (88% vs. 2736 FIDE) right behind
> Kasparov's 10/13 (77% vs. 2737) at Linares 1993. I don't understand how
> this is mathematically possible, unless you attribute immensely greater
> statistical weight to 13 game tournaments compared with eight round
> tournaments. Incredibly, Topo's recent performance pales by comparison (in
> Sonas' eyes) even to Emanuel Lasker's (!!!) performance in London, 1898
> (!!!) in which he scored 18/22 against an average opponent rating of 2692
> (!!!).
>
> Now really, Jeff. Do you think *anyone* in Londaon, 1898 could hold their
> own against *anyone* today rated 2692, or even 2592? how about 2492? The
> standard of play, the openings knowledge, has progressed to the point
> where these comparisons become absurd. It's safe to say that any 2500
> player would whoop Lasker and all his London, 1892 opponents into pierogi
> filling.
>
> That's not to belittle Lasker and his contemporaries, but let's put all of
> this into perspective. On an objective scale with Anand around 2780,
> Lasker was possibly 2400 strength.
>
>

quote:

---

>I have one and only one criterion. What would the score be in a 12 game
>match between Alekhine and a modern 2700 player? No excuses. I know Pono has
>seen Alekhine's games and the revers is not true, but what does that matter?
>I'm not asking who *would* be the best given the same training. I'm asking
>who *is* the best.

quote:

---

> average GM of today would easily defeat the Fischer of 1972.

quote:

---

[vbcol=seagreen]
>The average 8th grader of today knows more science than Newton did. The
>average undergraduate student knows more than Einstein.

quote:

---

>
>
> The average 8th grader of today knows more science than Newton did. The
> average undergraduate student knows more than Einstein.

quote:

---

> Objectively, who is the best chess player of all time?
>

quote:

---

>
> The average 8th grader of today knows more science than Newton did. The
> average undergraduate student knows more than Einstein.

quote:

---

> ratings aare higher than the imputed or speculated ratings of past
> generations' players. But the great strength of great players such as
> Lasker and Alekhine was their ability to set great problems for their
> opponents. There is no metric for that.

quote:

---

>
>
> A full understanding of Newtonian physics requires a mastery of calculus.

quote:

---

>
> Sure there is: the Elo system.

quote:

---

>The average undergrad or 8th grader knows a lot more OVERALL SCIENCE than
>Newton did. They have the benefit of the work of thousands of previous
>scientists.

quote:

---

>One could change the argument to graduate students and make the same point.

quote:

---

>
> The average undergrad or 8th grader knows a lot more OVERALL SCIENCE than
> Newton did. They have the benefit of the work of thousands of previous
> scientists.
>
> One could change the argument to graduate students and make the same point.

quote:

---

> The average undergrad or 8th grader knows a lot more OVERALL SCIENCE than
> Newton did.

quote:

---

> "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> writes:

An American '8th grader' usually would be 12-14 years old.
As far as I can recall, American students of that age have
done rather poorly on average when compared to students of
that age in many Asian and European countries on the same
kind of tests in mathematics and science.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You haven't studied the works of either man, have you?

quote:

---

> A full understanding of Newtonian physics requires a
> mastery of calculus. Newton was one of the first to put
> together a complete theory of both differential and
> intergral calculus, which he then used to explain the
> motion of objects. I doubt the average 8th grader
> could read Newton's papers on those subjects.

quote:

---

> There are PhD physicists who have spent their entire
> academic careers trying to get close to where Einstein
> was in the 1950's. Some of Einstein's 'lesser thoughts'
> in statistics turned that entire science upside down.

quote:

---

> I have one and only one criterion. What would the score be in a 12
> game match between Alekhine and a modern 2700 player? No excuses. I
> know Pono has seen Alekhine's games and the revers is not true, but
> what does that matter? I'm not asking who *would* be the best given
> the same training. I'm asking who *is* the best.

quote:

---

> "Angelo DePalma" <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> writes:
>
> That's a pretty dumb criterion. Who was the greatest mathemetician of
> all time? Must not have been Archimedes, by your standard. Let him
> take any freshman calculus final and he'd probably fail it cold.

quote:

---

>
> The average 8th grader of today knows more science than Newton did. The
> average undergraduate student knows more than Einstein.
>
>
>

quote:

---

>Sonas' rating
>system ignores objective strength and seems to emphasize relative strength.
>That's all I'm saying here.

quote:

---

> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:03:10 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> But don't the Elo numbers measure only relative strength ?
>
>

quote:

---

> effort. Most of them placed the greats of yesteryear somewhat below those
> of today. Sonas, for some reason, believes he can normalize these ratings
> across very large time periods, 100 years in many cases. So you see "2700
> players" from the 30s, 20s, etc., which to me is absurd. A 2700 player to
> me is one who would at least draw a long match against Ponomariov. Lasker,
> Capablanca, and Reshevsky would not come close to doing so.

quote:

---

>
> Capablanca would wipe the mat with Pono, even if he were transported
> through time and did not have to book up.
>
>
>

quote:

---

> day) would almost guarantee his defeat.

quote:

---

>A modern 2600 player would be all over the Cuban, probably reaching close
>to winning positions by move 15 in game after game. Just look at all the
>Ruy Lopez theory from the last two weeks!

quote:

---

>
> Someone of your experience ought to know that the Elo system measures
> win-and-loss results.

quote:

---

> Difficulty causes unpredictable fluctuations.
> If you can separate the difficulty factor out of ratings, you would be
> a greater statistician than Professor Elo -- which I strongly doubt,
> even though he is dead.

quote:

---

> How imaginative and innovative is the player? By that
> measure, many of today's top players would not fare all that well
> compared to Fischer, Bronstein, Reshevsky, Alekhine, Nimzovich, etc...
> How many of our current greats have developed a new opening system? How
> about a new theory of play like hypermodernism?

quote:

---

>I don't see any way to
> adequately settle this thread's question. All I know is that the
> current world championship (to me at least) lacks the brilliance or
> excitement of some of the top tournaments of this century. Most of the
> players are of a practical sort who grind out points without a great
> degree of originality. I admit there is the occassional brilliant game.
> Overall, though, these games don't impress me as being gems that will
> be played forever.

quote:

---

> past 30 years, Kasparov and Karpov come to mind, but the majority of
> our current crop of grandmasters will not be remembered by future
> generations except in some dusty footnotes. Still, it's an interesting
> question to ponder with no real solution.

quote:

---

>A friend of mine (who wrote his Ph.D. dissertation in
>nuclear physics at Stanford university and who once was
>one of the best mathematics students of his age in the
>United States) and I once were discussing a profound
>mathematical result by Sir Michael Atiyah (who has won
>a Fields Medal). My friend and I agreed that Michael
>Atiyah showed a depth of insight that was beyond ours.

quote:

---

> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> GM Yasser Seirawan and I would agree that Kasparov
> had better tournament results than either of us.

quote:

---

> We still talk about the 1948 championship tournament, after all, and Zurich
> 1953. San Luis 2005 will go down as one of the all-time great chess events.
>
> adp

quote:

---

>Mike Murray wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Contrary to Mike Murray's usual pejorative implication
>about me, my friend believes that I have shown a level
>of mathematical talent (as proven by my past results
>in mathematical problem-solving competitions) comparable
>to his own. Indeed, my friend once asked me if I was
>interested in joining him to study some of Michael
>Atiyah's works, but I was not doing any related work
>of my own, so I declined to pursue my own interests.

quote:

---

>Mike Murray may have his own motives for apparently
>believing that it's impossible for me to have been
>exceptionally talented at mathematics.

quote:

---

> Mike Murray wrote:
>
> Contrary to Mike Murray's usual pejorative implication
> about me, my friend believes that I have shown a level
> of mathematical talent (as proven by my past results
> in mathematical problem-solving competitions) comparable
> to his own. Indeed, my friend once asked me if I was
> interested in joining him to study some of Michael
> Atiyah's works, but I was not doing any related work
> of my own, so I declined to pursue my own interests.

quote:

---

> Mike Murray may have his own motives for apparently
> believing that it's impossible for me to have been
> exceptionally talented at mathematics.

quote:

---

> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have no reason to doubt that Nick is exceptionally
> talented at mathematics, or, for that matter, that he
> is much closer to Atiyah in mathematical insight than
> I am to Kasparov in tournament results.

quote:

---

> My dig was at the back-door humble way he
> passed on that bit of autobiographical info.

quote:

---

>As far as I can recall, however, Mike Murray has written
>some posts in which he has attacked me for my alleged
>lack of general intelligence, my alleged lack of
>intelligence on some particular subject(s), *or* my
>alleged exaggerating of my intelligence in general
>or in particular.

quote:

---

>If I recall correctly, Mike Murray has sometimes
>described me as one of the least intelligent writers
>in rec.games.chess.*.

quote:

---

>As, perhaps, Louis Blair also has wondered, does
>Mike Murray like to make statements that he does
>not believe are true?

quote:

---

>In addition, Mike Murray has a long record of
>flagrantly snipping my posts out-of-context,
>dishonestly distorting them, and writing lies
>in order to attack me personally.

quote:

---

[vbcol=seagreen]
>By the way, a cultural difference may be present here.
>Most American males seem to have no cultural inhibitions
>about proclaiming in public: "I am the greatest!"
>I was brought up to believe that's not the proper
>thing to do. When I understate what I have done,
>however, most Americans tend to assume that I am
>exaggerating, which they might well would have done.

quote:

---

First, he sets up his friend, "one of the best mathematics students of
his age in the United States". Mentions coolly that he and Nick
discussed (presumably as peers) a "profound mathematical result" by a
noted mathematician, both agree that the person of note had a depth of
insight beyond theirs (again, presumably as peers). So, the subtext
of this paragraph is that his friend's aura envelops Nick, as they
humbly defer to Atiyah.

At any rate, my dig, in this case, was a tweak -- not a major
criticism.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>On several past occasions, Mike Murray has attacked
>me by misrepresenting a past chess experience of mine.
>I once mentioned that I had played some games with
>an American (usually rated 2000-2100 USCF).
>As far as I can recall, Mike Murray has attacked
>me more than once for allegedly claiming that I was
>of USCF master (2200+) strength *only* on the basis
>of a few skittles games with that player.

quote:

---

>Here are the facts: <snipped>

quote:

---

> Mike Murray wrote:

It would not make much sense for my friend to discuss
mathematics with me if he believed that I was incapable
of understanding it.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Thanks to Mike Murray for his clarification.
>
> I do *not* recall (though I don't read all of his posts)
> that Mike Murray has written anything *explicitly* about
> my alleged lack of intelligence *in mathematics*.
>
> As far as I can recall, however, Mike Murray has written
> some posts in which he has attacked me for my alleged
> lack of general intelligence, my alleged lack of
> intelligence on some particular subject(s), *or* my
> alleged exaggerating of my intelligence in general
> or in particular.
>
> If I recall correctly, Mike Murray has sometimes
> described me as one of the least intelligent writers
> in rec.games.chess.*.
>
> As, perhaps, Louis Blair also has wondered, does
> Mike Murray like to make statements that he does
> not believe are true?
>
> Is there any evidence that I could be exceptionally
> intelligent in mathematics and exceptionally stupid
> in nearly everything else?
>
> In addition, Mike Murray has a long record of
> flagrantly snipping my posts out-of-context,
> dishonestly distorting them, and writing lies
> in order to attack me personally. I have cited
> some examples on many past occasions, and I lack
> the time to do so again.
>
> Over the years, what Mike Murray has written to
> attack me has been discussed at length by me with
> some other writers in rec.games.chess.*, including
> Mark Houlsby and Simon ('chapman billy'), who may
> not concur about much, but who concur that
> Mike Murray has long treated me in an extremely
> abusive and dishonest way.
>
> I have no general objection to what Mike Murray
> writes when discussing chess--not me, history,
> or politics--in a technical sense. Then I can
> concur, more or less, with some of his thoughts.

quote:

---

Why did Mike Murray feel compelled to make what
he himself has described as a 'dig' at me?
My post did *not* mention or allude to Mike Murray
in any way. It criticised Ray Gordon; did
Mike Murray object to that?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> As I happen to be personally acquainted with
> members of his family, I prefer not to compare
> myself in mathematics to Sir Michael Atiyah.
>
> *If* I had written that I showed exceptional talent
> in mathematics, then would Mike Murray have attacked
> me for allegedly boasting? Would Mike Murray have
> demanded that I prove it? For a sufficiently large
> financial incentive, I suppose that I could produce
> some documents (including newspaper articles if
> they can be found in the archives) to prove that
> I was regarded as exceptionally talented in
> mathematics.
>
> But why should I make a statement that could give
> give Mike Murray an opportunity for more trolling?
>
> By the way, a cultural difference may be present here.
> Most American males seem to have no cultural inhibitions
> about proclaiming in public: "I am the greatest!"
> I was brought up to believe that's not the proper
> thing to do. When I understate what I have done,
> however, most Americans tend to assume that I am
> exaggerating, which they might well would have done.
>
> On several past occasions, Mike Murray has attacked
> me by misrepresenting a past chess experience of mine.
> I once mentioned that I had played some games with
> an American (usually rated 2000-2100 USCF).
> As far as I can recall, Mike Murray has attacked
> me more than once for allegedly claiming that I was
> of USCF master (2200+) strength *only* on the basis
> of a few skittles games with that player.
>
> Here are the facts:
>
> 1) I spent some time in the United States, during
> which I had promised my family not 'to waste
> my time by getting involved seriously in chess'.
> I kept my promise by not playing in any USCF
> tournaments, but I did play (the temptation was
> too much) hundreds of unrated games (sorry).
>
> 2) My American friend (2000-2100 USCF) was my most
> frequent opponent. We played 100+ serious
> training games at (G/30 or slower) non-blitz
> time controls under simulated tournament
> conditions, except that they were unrated.
>
> 3) My opponent took our games quite seriously,
> and he would prepare by using ChessBase to
> 'book up' against me. I had no chess
> database and few chess books at hand.
> My opponent already had played at least
> several hundred USCF rated games (all
> of which he had saved in his computer),
> and he was much more experienced than I.
>
> 4) I scored about 80 percent against him
> for a performance rating of 2200+ USCF.
> He always was sportsmanlike and objective
> in our post-game analysis sessions.
> He told me that he had expected at first
> to score at least 50 percent against me,
> but he acknowledged that I had proven that
> I was a stronger player. For whatever it's
> worth, he told me that he thought I was
> among the top one percent in chess talent.
>
> 5) I was able to play some other games with
> USCF (2200+) masters (some of whom were
> stronger than I), and nearly all of them
> estimated that I was 2200+ USCF in strength.
> (The lowest estimate was 2100 USCF.)
> I did win a rather fortunate game against
> an overconfident USCF 2500 player who
> made an unsound sacrifice. I defended
> accurately enough and won the endgame.

quote:

---

> I make no claim today of being a particularly
> strong player. But I do say that I have *not*
> made any false claim about what I have done.

quote:

---

>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
> I grant you that there is some interesting chess being played today. I
> just don't see anyone putting together a series of brilliancies over a
> period of years, with the possible exception of Kasparov. I wasn't as
> impressed with San Luis as you were. Comparatively speaking Zurich 1953
> had a number of fantastic games. Time will tell. Check back in 50 years
> and see if people are still studying the games in the San Luis
> tournament. On second thought, maybe we'd better leave that task to our
> descendents.
>
> Regards,
> Ken Albin
>

quote:

---

>Anyone interested in Mike Murray's speculations
>about me (someone about whom he knows almost nothing)
>may read Mike Murray's post in the RGCP thread,
>"Who is Nick?" (10 April 2004), in which Mike
>Murray apparently concluded that I might well
>be Tariq Ali (a London-based writer and editor
>of Pakistani heritage) or someone much like him.
>Mike Murray reveals far more about his ignorance
>and prejudices than he could reveal facts about me.

quote:

---

>By the way, I have forwarded Mike Murray's post to
>some of my friends, who found it wildly amusing.
>One friend (who sometimes writes in RGC*) has
>occasionally taken to referring to me in jest
>as 'Tariq'. It seems to be his way of mocking
>Mike Murray.

quote:

---

>
>Why did Mike Murray feel compelled to make what
>he himself has described as a 'dig' at me?

quote:

---

>My post did *not* mention or allude to Mike Murray
>in any way. It criticised Ray Gordon; did
>Mike Murray object to that?

quote:

---

>I did not mention all of these facts previously
>because I do not feel obliged to present my c.v.,
>in effect, in response to accusations by a troll.
>Also, I tend to have a sense of personal reticence
>that's not shared by someone like Sam Sloan.

quote:

---

>My point is that Mike Murray had *no reason to
>assume* (beyond his general hostility to me)
>that the *only* evidence that I had to say that
>I was of USCF master (2200+) strength was a
>few skittle games against a USCF expert.

quote:

---

>I never wrote that he was my only USCF-rated
>opponent or that he was the strongest USCF-rated
>opponent whom I played and defeated at that time.

quote:

---

>Unlike many American players, apparently, I would
>*not* take any particular pride in being known as
>a 'USCF master', if I ever were to earn such a
>distinction by playing enough in USCF tournaments.
>So please don't refer to me as a 'NM' or something
>like that. Thanks.

quote:

---

>As far as I can recall of what he has written about himself,
>Mike Murray is retired. I am not retired and lately I have
>spent too much time responding to various misunderstandings,
>distortions, lies, and other nonsense on Usenet.

quote:

---

>
> Not as big a flaw as it would seem at first glance. No one -- and I mean
> NO ONE -- could finish a game as well as Capablanca could.
>
> You're talking about the man who all but "refuted" the "original Marshall
> Attack" OVER THE BOARD, despite Marshall's TEN YEARS of preparation of
> this line, especially for Capablanca. I think he could handle any
> "modern" opening that might be thrown his way.
>
> Capa would concede maybe a quarter-pawn or a half-pawn at most in the
> opening (if at all), and from then on out he would destroy Pono or just
> about any other top player of this generation save maybe for Kasparov, and
> now, apparently, Topalov.
>
>
> Doesn't work that way: once the players of today took Capa out of his
> book, his responses would likely do the same to them. Capablanca-Marshall
> may have been the greatest chessgame ever played in fact.
>
> While I talk about opening strength and the 1/x rule, Capablanca is the
> exception to this rule because he is so well versed in endgame theory that
> he's like a racehorse who flies through the stretch. This is why he
> almost never lost during his time, and anyone who thinks his opponents
> were weak should look at the incredible amount of theory they contributed
> to the modern game.
>
>
>

quote:

---

>
> sqirmfish@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> The best ever is Ray Gordon. I gave him all the steroids he needs to be
> 2900.
>

quote:

---

>
> "Matt Nemmers" <mattnemmers@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:bu32f.5560
>
> Good picks.
>
> Fischer chose Morphy as best ever. Tal when accused of being a 'Great'
> thanked the speaker but deferred to the real greats in his opinion,
> Capablanca and Alekhine. Taimanov chose Kasparov, and Kasparov chose...
> Kasparov! lol
>
> Phil
>
>
>

quote:

---

> In Fischer's ranking of the top 10, he stated he believed Capablanca's
> endgame play was over-rated. He argued his main strength was his
> accuracy.

quote:

---

> Wouldn't you say that Alekhine could easily beat Lasker in a long
> match?

quote:

---

>According to my database the two played 16 times total.

quote:

---

>Alekhine won the first FIVE games, played between 1908 and 1913.

quote:

---

>The final score: Alekhine 6 wins, 7 draws, 3 losses (59.4%). Lasker 3 wins,
>7 draws, 6 losses (40.6%).

quote:

---

>If you're going to lie, at least do so in such a way that you cannot be
>refuted by cold hard facts available to anyone with a decent database.

quote:

---

> Kingston, you're such a XXXXing bullshit artist. You pulled this informat=

quote:

---

> out of your XXX.

quote:

---

> According to my database the two played 16 times total.
> Alekhine won the first FIVE games, played between 1908 and 1913.

quote:

---

> If you're going to lie, at least do so in such a way that you cannot be
> refuted by cold hard facts available to anyone with a decent database.

quote:

---

> Kingston, you're such a XXXXing bullshit artist. You pulled this
> information
> out of your XXX.

quote:

---

> According to my database the two played 16 times total.
> Alekhine won the first FIVE games, played between 1908 and 1913.

quote:

---

> If you're going to lie, at least do so in such a way that you cannot be
> refuted by cold hard facts available to anyone with a decent database.

quote:

---

> Yes, I did. Very sorry.

quote:

---

> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
> Why would you so glibly conclude that? Their lifetime score was +3
> -1 =4 in Lasker's favor. Alekine never beat Lasker until Zurich 1934,
> when Alekhine was near his peak but Lasker was 65 years old.