On May 15, 6:58 pm, jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Phil, are you capable of discussing the matter sensibly, or is
> spitting clouds of ink your only talent?
That was a rhetorical question, John, correct?
> 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.
Both. And, of course, his original statement was his usual puffery.
> 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.
Cambridge Springs 1904 could be left out for the same reason, although
many of the world's strongest players turned out for it. There very
well may be other "US tournaments" to consider as well.
> 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.
A world champion and his challenger played in NY 1927. Where are there
likes today for the SPICE Puff, err, Cup?
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),
If that, if the comments from folks who actually played chess with him
are to be believed.
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.
|
