Chess One wrote:
> <ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:f6b9085b-a793-467a-8570-f7a63c3c0d5b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 15, 10:17 am, ttk5...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On May 15, 8:06 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > <jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> >
>news:a81371eb-4be0-4468-9dcd-affd23852beb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "Alekhine's Parrot" (that quacking fowl Phil Innes) writes at the
> > > _Chessville Weekly_:
> >
> > > "Coming up later this Year =EF=BF=BD Strongest ever US Tournament.
> >
> > > "September 19th to 28th sees a [so far] Category 15 tournament on US
> > > soil in the 10 player SPICE CUP. Seven of the 10 invitees have
> > > already signed up, and I understand average Elo is currently 2600."
> >
> > > Question: Is it really plausible to claim that this tournament
is/will=
> > > be stronger than New York 1927, or the 1st and 2nd Piatigorsky Cups?
> > > ("Highest category" would be correct, but that's not what he wrote.)
> >
> > > ---
> >
> > > Im****tant News!
> >
> > > John Hillery thinks that any group of 10 US Players circa 1927
> > > //averaged//
> > > 2600 ratings. :)))))))
> >
> > That is not what he is saying, Phil. By "US tournament," he clearly
> > means "a chess tournament played on US soil," and not "a tournament
> > limited to US citizens." The three events he refers to: New York 1927,
> > and the two Piatigorsky Cups (Los Angeles 1963 and Santa Monica 1966),
> > had only one or two American players each, out of six to 10 total
> > contestants.
> >
> > > [quite apart from the fact that no ratings existed, even as
retrofitte=
d
> > > numbers against other players in the world, that is some might
claim!]=
> >
> > > Sometimes I don't know where his talents begin - somewhere on the
Yell=
ow
> > > Brick Road? Anyway, now we know what the JKH definition of
'plausible'=
> > > is.
> > > It is indeed possible that he thinks 1927 players could average
2600,
> > > and
> > > that is enough to write into these newsgroups, with disparaging
commen=
ts
> > > like a newbie or a follower of clan-Murray.
> >
> > > As a journalist, surely John Hillery will want to substatiate his
poin=
t
> > > by
> > > mentioning even one fact; for example, a list of 10 players he
propose=
s
> > > to
> > > average 2600 from 1927, would seem to me to be a minimum proposition
o=
n
> > > his
> > > part in order to be plausible.
> >
> > Here are the contestants at New York 1927, with their 5-year peak
> > ratings as given by Dr. Elo in his book:
>
> ** Taylor covers for Hillery, who is shy of answering questions put to
him=
> about his own utterances, and talks instead of ratings before there were
> ratings! Retrogressive and guessed at ratings of a previous era.
>
> > Capablanca: 2725
> > Alekhine: 2690
> > Nimzovitch: 2615
> > Vidmar: 2600
> > Spielmann: 2560
> > Marshall: 2570
> >
> > That's an average of 2627, which would ****ge it just into Category
> > 16 (Elo 2626-2650). Probably a pretty reasonable estimate, perhaps a
> > mite high -- with the exception of the oldest player, Marshall, these
> > masters were all at or near their time of peak performance. So it's
> > quite plausible to suggest that New York 1927 might be the strongest
> > tournament ever held on US soil. It certainly was the the strongest up
> > to that time.
>
> ** If indeed we were to speculate on regressions, and only say
'plausible'=
..
> Sure!
>
> > Checking the list of "the world's strongest tournaments" in Fox &
> > James' "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" (Faber and Faber, 1993),
> > we do indeed find NY 1927, and the two Piatigorsky Cups, given as the
> > strongest American events, all at an estimated Category 15
> > (2601-2625).
>
> **Hardly candid. Should it not be mentioned that these are regressive
and
> estimated ratings? Or maybe that is too much for this conversation to
> withstand.
>
> **For players with ratings, it is uncontested. For degrees of
speculation
> there is resort to untested performance, as if the named players above
cou=
ld
> compete at the same level as those with similar rating today.
>
> > If this Spice Cup tournament surp***** them, it will be quite a
> > prestigious event.
>
> Just for the sake of fuller information, here are the Patigorsky Cup
> contestants, and their 5-year peak Elo ratings (or Jan 1978 rating
> where Elo does not give a 5-year peak):
>
> ** What has this to do with the price of fish? These players with
ratings
> never played en group in the USA to achieve the current category level.
It=
> merely establishes world ratings in 63 and 66, as some sort of
benchmark.
>
> **Phil Innes
>
> 1963:
>
> Keres 2670
> Petrosian 2680
> Najdorf 2635
> Olafsson 2530 (as of 1/1/1978)
> Reshevsky 2680
> Gligoric 2620
> Benko 2570
> Panno 2580 (1/1/1978)
>
> 1966:
>
> Spassky 2680
> Fischer 2780 (1/11978)
> Larsen 2620 (1/1/1978)
> ****tisch 2630 (1/1/1978)
> Unzicker 2590
> Petrosian 2680
> Reshevsky 2680
> Najdorf 2635
> Ivkov 2570
> Donner 2500
Phil, are you capable of discussing the matter sensibly, or is
spitting clouds of ink your only talent?
1) "U.S. tournament" means exactly what is says, a tournament held in
the U.S. The residence or citizen****p of the players is completely
irrelevant. Your attempt to bring this up indicates that either you
don't understand the question or don''t have an answer.
2) New York 1927 did not have ten players. You are probably thinking
of New York 1924 (though that had 11). Can you really expect your
opinions to be taken seriously when you lack a grasp of the facts?
Note that I deliberately did not mention New York 1924 because, while
the top half (maybe 2/3) was very strong, there several relatively
weak players at the bottom bringing the average down.
3) The question is not _rating_, it's _playing strength_. (I made that
point in my original post, but apparently it went over your head.)
Those retroactive calculations are certainly suggestive, but you are
correct (mirabile dictu) that they are not dispositive. It's a
question of informed judgment. I'm quite willing to consider differing
opinions on this -- but only from those qualified to hold an opinion.
Frankly, Phil, that doesn''t include you. You're a fairly weak player
(low Expert), and your comments make it clear that you are profoundly
ignorant of chess history. (Have you even played though the games of
those three tournaments?) Most people keep quiet when they know
nothing of a subject, not wanting to make fools of themselves. In your
case, that horse has clearly left the barn.
|
