On May 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:d291f19d-a95d-4940-a155-7cbd721a3194@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Phil, are you capable of discussing the matter sensibly, or is
> spitting clouds of ink your only talent?
>
> **Spitting? Got something to say Taylor - spit it out.
>
> 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.
>
> **Either I brought it up or I didn't. Its not an 'attempt'.
>
> **Here we go with another fuss-fest from Taylor who, unless you include
27
> sub-paragraphs on every aspect of a public newsgroup post, goes into a
> tizzy, and starts calling nams.
>
> 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?
>
> **Since you don't align your text with mine, what facts are you
contesting?
> I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
> tournament, and asked you to contest it if you think there was a cat 15
> before, or some equal field of players averaging 2600.
>
> **Of course Piatigorsky and Lone Pine were stronger - so /evidently/ I
meant
> by US tournament, US players. But Taylor thinks this is 'getting out of
> something'.
>
> 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.)
>
> **You think that's a point? I [laugh] laugh at people who make the
> distinction of rating and strength, since this is a distinction without
a
> difference.
>
> **But to be on topic, where is any content in your post? Its all spit so
> far.
>
> 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.
>
> ** ? What a mouthful of spite!
>
> (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.
>
> **What the **** are you talking about Taylor Kingston? Its just your
usual
> pissy post on what /you/ understood from anything. You can't even
present
> your own statement of your own idea. And you slunk away from my
challenge to
> say what that is to write this frothy stuff. Its your usual posturing in
> public - and you have said nothing in this message to contest anything I
> wrote.
Amazing. Until I read P Innes' post above, I never knew John Hillery
and Taylor Kingston were one and the same person. This is as shocking
as the news that Dr. Steven B. Dowd and Larry Tapper were one and the
same - another 'discovery' by P Innes.
|
