On Mar 13, 3:16 pm, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:2fb6d24e-0ec7-442d-86ee-e18262dc8abf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> > > list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the
> > > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> > > ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question
> > > -- a strongish master.
>
> > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
> average poster was marginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
> that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
> himself:
>
> > "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
> > of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
>
> This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
> better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
> been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
> which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
> doesn't it?
>
> Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
> matter is pretty much on the money.
>
> LT
Thank you for pointing this out.
I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
On the other hand, a 2550 rated chess player would be a "weak"
grandmaster when compared to Kasparov.
However, I believe that any rated expert and most class A and B
players would be strong enough to look at the position on my website
at:
http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
and realize that the moves Keres played that just gave away the game
were so weak that it must have been a dump.
Also, the final game, the game that Keres won, was an obvious dump
too. At that point, Botvinnik had clenched first place. Keres needed
to win to tie for third with Reshevsky. That last game was so poorly
played that it looks like two drunk 1600 players bashing each other.
Sam Sloan
|
