| |
Main
Date: 07 Dec 2008 07:57:50
From:
Subject: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
I offer this conversation its own title, since its interesting, and
besides its one that is likely to go long.
> There really is no point in discussing the
> match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
> like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. More
> interesting is the idea of a match between a
> modern grandmaster and PM; between more
> theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
> I expect the modern grandmaster would try
> to close the position, out of fear of PM's
> tactical wizardry in open positions.
What I really want to do is entice readers to consider how they know
what they know - so in this series of exchanges with Greg Kennedy I
have sponsored this question by asking
1) what there is more than asserted belief
2) the theoretical challange of proposing that Morphy would not deal
well with hyper-modern play
3) given 5 or 10 minute games against a prepared opponent, any strong
player can lose
> In a way, we have "forced" poor Dr. IMnes
> back into his delusional nearly-an-IM state,
> by matching him against his vast superior.
> That was both cruel and pointless.
All you have done is some sort or Rant about a "Great". Its common to
do so! Strong living players often say they regret their fans and
enthusiasts.
The point of the issue is to properly assess Morphy. TK has proposed
he was 'historically' 2650+ Elo by regressive analysis. I am not quite
sure what this means in fact, since is he proposing that if Morphy
showed up today he would play 2650 chess? I see offramp [I think] also
mentioned that the Elo system itself may have changed a gear or two
[that is also Russian opinion] and suffered two types of inflation.
One of those was a sort of rigging - but the other is more honest, and
is simply the result of more GMs pushing the upper limit.
The problem is ever with the pre-Elo estimate. I even think that
technically there may not have been sufficient "X" in the range of
players Morphy encountered, neither enough games played to avoid wide
statistical variance.
That is the first contention. Just to keep everyone warmed up, what if
Morphy was no better than current IM level? Say 2525. That might place
him 3000th in the world.
Secondly, the contention is that Morphy would play well at fast speeds
- but this point by Greg Kennedy seems to have been completely
abandoned, at least to the extent that no supporting information is
supplied to justify the assertion.
BUT! Here is the big thing. I have been arguing substantially against
myself, and while its interesting to not really find an objective
refutation that "Morphy couldn't cope with hypermoderns" - I
personally do not actually believe that.
The most interesting thing to emerge from MAMS studies recently,
thanks to Dr. Alberts, is that the way to play to win [at least with
the White bits] against any level of player, and especially against
super-computers and top programs is to REVERT to Romantic-Era play.
I am more than somewhat dissapointed that after going to all the
trouble to lead out this conversation, almost all responses [save Mike
Murray's] have been personality guesses combined with negative
projections. Hardly no science at all!
So... What's true? (1) Would Morphy even be a GM today if he played
from his historic understanding. (2) Is there any particualr reason to
think he would be any good at Blitz - or even more provocatively, that
a master player wouldn't stand a chance? (3) But following Alberts
[see his latest at Chessville - which incidentally illustrates very
provocatively that certain positions in the Sicilian are lost at move
10 by Black !!] is Morphyesque or Romantic Era play the way to beat
the electronic beasts?
Alberts has been looking at the deliberate exchange of material for
other factors, but certainly not 'romantically', but very precicely
calculated risks indeed.
He uses "Fritz" itself to measure the risks, and recommends to the
beast-beater specific levels of white and black risk.
If anyone wants to discuss this subject, please go ahead here - or
alternately, I can make you an introduction to Dr. A.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> -- help bot
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 15:29:21
From:
Subject: Re: Innes, real measurement thereof (was: Morphy etc.)
|
On Dec 9, 5:24=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:06=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Anyone here can go towww.uschess.organdcheck the entire history
> > of your USCF-rated play, and see not only your ratings, but who you
> > played, where, when, and with what result.
>
> =A0 =A0In fact, the USCF only goes back so far--
> perhaps 1990 or thereabouts. =A0 As the vast
> majority of /my games/ fall into the period
> *before* the cutoff, the above claims seem
> ludicrous. =A0 =A0I don't know how this might
> work out with Dr. IMnes the 2450,
not my claim, this is Brennan's claim which you are happy to reapeat.
I only said 2400, which is 2275 Elo at the time. I said in reference
to a painting that nothing much could be understood by idiot-Brennan's
own posture in a non-chess newsgroup, who didn;t know if a high number
was better or worse - there is your 'claim' fathered on me, and which
you, you shit, you never-was, are pleased to repeat.
I gave up chess for 20 years from pressure of family and work, then
family again. Coming back to it I seem to have scored 2133 or
something according to USCF's records as may be viewed by anyone.
But let me get up your nose.
Aged 20 or something, I beat the Cornish champion in a game similar to
that with Bornwholz, see other current thread, and there is a witness
here who was present to it. The guy was rated 210 [circa 1972]
English. Convert that to current Elo and let me know what it is.
Otherwise why do you write?
It is to be noted that ALL strong players here have departed because
they are abused and probably bored too. Is that your intent?
The issue, if you can remember, is if your balls shrink taking on the
historic Morphy at blitz knowing whatever you know compared with
whatever he did then =3D a guy maybe 2300, though best in world.
That is the issue. If your balls truly shrink at the possibility,
speak up!
Or shut up.
Phil Innes
>for he
> chatters about being a Kelp, which I think
> may be one of those things which wash
> up on the shores of Great Brittain-- Ireland,
> Scotland, or what-have-you.
>
> =A0 In any case, it is wrong-headed to imagine
> that the USCF Web site has a /complete/
> history of every USCF player's results.
> That's sloppy thinking.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 14:24:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes, real measurement thereof (was: Morphy etc.)
|
On Dec 9, 9:06=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 Anyone here can go towww.uschess.organd check the entire history
> of your USCF-rated play, and see not only your ratings, but who you
> played, where, when, and with what result.
In fact, the USCF only goes back so far--
perhaps 1990 or thereabouts. As the vast
majority of /my games/ fall into the period
*before* the cutoff, the above claims seem
ludicrous. I don't know how this might
work out with Dr. IMnes the 2450, for he
chatters about being a Kelp, which I think
may be one of those things which wash
up on the shores of Great Brittain-- Ireland,
Scotland, or what-have-you.
In any case, it is wrong-headed to imagine
that the USCF Web site has a /complete/
history of every USCF player's results.
That's sloppy thinking.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 10:40:31
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 4:58=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > My guess is that a well booked 2355 player might get a serious
> > advantage with some sharp line.
> What is annoying about this level of response is that there is no
> attempt to do other than believe things - like Morphy would crush you
> - and this is in fact a significant factor in how you play, no?
In my first years at chess I did indeed pay too much attention to the
probable outcome of the game before it started, and this is a very bad
habit. I cured myself of it first by declining to look at the rating
of any new person I played (as was my invariable habit before) then
eventually by convincing myself not to care. I was helped in this by
a comment of FM (or is it now IM?) Ray Stone, who told me that he knew
he was going to win a certain game against me, not because his
position was better, but because I was not playing to win.
If I was actually playing Morphy I would have to do my best to
cultivate some optimism. I would as white probably try the Reti,
which is the opening I know best, and involves a strategy which would
be largely new to him (but not entirely, from Staunton's games).
But here and now, not playing the game, I realize that objectively it
would be all but inevitable that I would be outplayed, even if I got
a good position from the opening.
>
> But what actually could Morphy do? Let's say I play a Sicilian
> response, and let's say I know vastly more about options for White and
> Black than anyone then? Where is Morphy going to find any action short
> of move 20? What can he actually do?
As for myself, I don't know any opening system well enough to do that.
Still, if my knowledge of the Sicilian was encyclopedic out to move
20, I would be playing at some enormous level of strength, say 3000,
for quite a few moves. In effect I would be receiving odds.
.
And my contention, remember, was
> that at blitz I could take him because he would be unfamiliar with
> resulting positons.
In blitz I do not doubt that anyone who was that familiar with the
openings would get crushing positions from time to time (in blitz it
regularly happened to me!) How many of those would be converted to
wins is the real question. One minor tactical slip converts a
positional win into a simple loss.
> I am dissapointed at your reply Bill, since a player of your level can
> contain wild romantic tactical positions by not allowing them to
> arise, no?
I can do this against players of my own strength, and perhaps even
somewhat stronger players. Usually. But players like Morphy and Tal
can find tactical adventures in pretty innocuous looking positions. I
have great respect, maybe too much, for the tactically adept, as I am
not that adept myself. But I recall Reinfeld (a strong player
himself) writing that while analyzing with the then-elderly Marshall,
the old man would find tactics in positions which R thought were cut
and dried.
Morphy always played the exchange variation when presented with the
French defense. Now this is by no means as simple a draw as most
people think (a friend of mine won quite a few games against expert
and master opposition precisely because people tend to think it is an
easy draw) but here is a case where a player could learn the theory,
which is nothing like as difficult as learning the full Sicilian.
> And if so, wherefore Morphy at Blitz these days. A street chess player
> could take him.
Not the ones I know! But if Dzindi is still playing in NY, well ...
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:32:41
From:
Subject: Re: Innes, real measurement thereof (was: Morphy etc.)
|
On Dec 9, 9:06=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 9, 7:58=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 9:35=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Phil, this is all public record, and no amount of shouting and
> > > blustering is going to change it.
>
> > >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296http://main.usch.=
..
>
> > > You don't have a correspondence rating with USCF or ICCF, and claimin=
g
> > > a 2222 rating from some unnamed source just makes you look like even
> > > more of a posturing twit. Why do you persist in doing this sort of
> > > thing? Inferiority complex?
>
> > These are your opinions. OK?
>
> =A0 No, Phil, your USCF rating is *_not_* a matter of opinion. It is a
> matter of publicy recorded fact. It is a *_fact_*, an easily
> verifiable fact, that it currently is 2044, that the highest it has
> been since 1995 is 2099, and that it has never been higher than 2139.
> That you would persist in claiming it was 2199 in 1995 utterly beggars
> credulity.
Really? I remember it going there right after I beat Bornholz OTB [the
guy who beat Frank Marshall, yada yada.] As I say, they put your
rating on the chess life label at the time. And I haven't really
played USCF rated chess for ages, and sure, its whatever it is now.
But Hillery wrote in to piss and moan and divert even further.
Fatuously, but entire in character, he doubts what I say, and then
says 'posturing twit' and continues to admonish me not to be personal.
You don't get the irony of that do you Kingston?
The last Mouth to do that and actually play me was a USCF type named
Grant Perks. He is 21xx. We played two games, both minatures, and joy!
He played the Pelikan, but didn't know the 'weak' line a4, inhibiting
that b-pawns expansion, and clogged up his middle by playing as if he
had the initiative - sad but true. With black I played an English
Defence, which also confused him, and allowed a shot which secured a
second pawn, and he resigned since his counter-stroke allowed another
shot ;)
The point with you ratings obsessives is that none of this matters at
all, even if you can substantiate it. After all, why are you writing
this?
I suppose it could be something to do with your own 'suggestion' of
being 2300+ Elo - whereas you were never even a B player.
Tell me though, people argue black and blue that the worth of the
computer opening book is scarcely more than 100 points. But you seemed
to play 500 points over your level. Use a computer did you? Or books?
See, whatever is true about me, I don't do either of those.
> =A0 Many times we've seen you try to bluster on when you've been caught
> in a mistake, but this is perhaps the most blatant, most egregious,
> and most inexplicable case ever. One could excuse it if, after your
> claim was challenged, you had said something like "Sorry, I made a
> typographical error; I meant 2099 in 1995, not 2199." But you didn't =97
> you've kept insisting on 2199, and backing this claim with nothing but
> hot air.
What is the difference, from your perspective if the highest you found
was 2133, and I say 2199? Why did you introduce that into the Morphy
thread? Do you really think that he would be 2690 these days?
You think better than Evans and Keene, citing Nunn against Evans. Now
you think better than Nunn!
None of them are good enough for Taylor Kingston, the not even a b
player!
One might think you were more selective about what you represent than
even Our Louis.
Even if 2133 were a lifetime best, don't i stand a chance at Blitz
against a 2300 Morphy who never saw these types of openings before?
Is that your point? What is your point?
> =A0 Anyone here can go towww.uschess.organd check the entire history
> of your USCF-rated play, and see not only your ratings, but who you
> played, where, when, and with what result. It shows that you never hit
> 2199, and why =97 because you kept losing to lower-rated players. What
> you think you've accomplished by claiming otherwise passeth all
> understanding. All you actually have accomplished is to drive yet
> another nail, a big one, into the already well-sealed coffin of your
> credibility.
Having a pissy day as usual? You don't have the balls to test either
your chess nor your mouth in person. You just say you do.
I don't think you would do that to anyone face to face. Get it?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:12:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 9:35=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
Is your position
> really so weak that you cannot defend it without engaging in
> personalities?
That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:06:03
From:
Subject: Innes, real measurement thereof (was: Morphy etc.)
|
On Dec 9, 7:58=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 9:35=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Phil, this is all public record, and no amount of shouting and
> > blustering is going to change it.
>
> >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296http://main.usch...
>
> > You don't have a correspondence rating with USCF or ICCF, and claiming
> > a 2222 rating from some unnamed source just makes you look like even
> > more of a posturing twit. Why do you persist in doing this sort of
> > thing? Inferiority complex?
>
> These are your opinions. OK?
No, Phil, your USCF rating is *_not_* a matter of opinion. It is a
matter of publicy recorded fact. It is a *_fact_*, an easily
verifiable fact, that it currently is 2044, that the highest it has
been since 1995 is 2099, and that it has never been higher than 2139.
That you would persist in claiming it was 2199 in 1995 utterly beggars
credulity.
Many times we've seen you try to bluster on when you've been caught
in a mistake, but this is perhaps the most blatant, most egregious,
and most inexplicable case ever. One could excuse it if, after your
claim was challenged, you had said something like "Sorry, I made a
typographical error; I meant 2099 in 1995, not 2199." But you didn't =97
you've kept insisting on 2199, and backing this claim with nothing but
hot air.
Anyone here can go to www.uschess.org and check the entire history
of your USCF-rated play, and see not only your ratings, but who you
played, where, when, and with what result. It shows that you never hit
2199, and why =97 because you kept losing to lower-rated players. What
you think you've accomplished by claiming otherwise passeth all
understanding. All you actually have accomplished is to drive yet
another nail, a big one, into the already well-sealed coffin of your
credibility.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 04:58:54
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 9:35=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > After 20 years away from chess I achieved 2199 rating, in Vermont!
>
> > > Then why does that not show on the USCF website?
>
> > I have no idea, but I did have the label on CL which printed your
> > rating on it. When was that?
>
> > > You claim to have
> > > been 2199 in 1995, yet USCF clearly shows you as first 2099, then
> > > 2044, that year. That's a difference of 100 to 156 points.
>
> > I thought I was only 2034 - you have me confused. OTOH, I really don't
> > give a damn - thought I understand you do.
>
> > > > > > My highest rating, same year was 2199.
>
> > > > > Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your highest-ever
> > > > > rating as 2139, and that back in 1991?
>
> > > > I don't know.
>
> > > You mean you claim to have had a legitimate USCF rating of 2199 in
> > > 1995?
>
> > Was it 94, 93? Fucked if I know or care. What is it to you? You lied
> > about your rating suggesting it was 2300+ Elo. Which is 2400+ USCF and
> > - laugh - you were never even a B Player.
>
> > Tell me though, my correspondence rating is 2222 or something - when
> > you played correspondence, did you use books or computers? I don't. I
> > just want to know something about you, and your interest in being
> > honest.
>
> > > Yet somehow USCF has screwed up, and cheated you out of 100
> > > points? They don't show you as EVER having a 2199 rating, in any form
> > > of chess, normal OTB, quick OTB, or postal. Please explain.
>
> > I don't care Kingston. I don't care if they said I was 1750 like you.
> > You care. Why do you care? Why did you outrageously lie here in
> > public, and why do you corrupt this thread with your 1750 beliefs
> > about things with no objective factors mentioned. Why do you always
> > snip that?
>
> > If you were honest I would tell you more. If you were better I would
> > play you and demonstrate our difference. If you could talk objectively
> > about chess history you would. Your are none of these in my opinion.
>
> > > > But that is higher than what you said, 100 points
> > > > higher, right bitch? I am, did you try to conceal and distort
> > > > something by saying 2044? Looks like you did.
>
> > > You consider it concealment and distortion to state your current,
> > > official USCF rating, which is in fact 2044? Sorry, Phil, but
> > > "conceal" and "distort" seem to mean very different things to you tha=
n
> > > they do to me.
>
> > Yeah. I think you are right. You content yourself with the lowest base
> > rating I achieved, and this, in your opinion gets rid of the topic in
> > this thread. Morphy was some God, like Lasker was.
>
> > Just doing that is enough to render you into patzer hell. That is my
> > opinion, but it is also opinion of all strong players. Stick to being
> > a Librarian Kingston, and if you have something to say on topic, try
> > to stay to the subject. You have not even visited this one - like a
> > patzer, you are clueless if Morphy was great or just beyond your
> > personal level of comprehension.
>
> > Morphy would get slaughtered these days. Get over it! You and everyone
> > else - you got nothing to say, and if you want to lie down before the
> > Great player, then that is your own prescription not to fight him. It
> > is not the attitude of how to fight him. Get it?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > How come no-one noticed my nice joke on the Hungarian player, Peter
> > Kelo?
>
> Phil, this is all public record, and no amount of shouting and
> blustering is going to change it.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296http://main.uschess.=
org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=3D12529296
>
> You don't have a correspondence rating with USCF or ICCF, and claiming
> a 2222 rating from some unnamed source just makes you look like even
> more of a posturing twit. Why do you persist in doing this sort of
> thing? Inferiority complex?
These are your opinions. OK? - that's the idea of the thread. There
are even players in this very newsgroup who know I had a 2300 corres
rating quite recently!
So what you are inclined to believe is, rightly or wrongly, simply a
matter of belief - not knowledge.
When we get to consider Morphy it is much the same - Even though Nunn
proposes a large differential in ratings [from 1911] it would be even
larger for Morphy - therefore taking a theoretical 2690 and reducing
it 400 points gives Morphy 2290.
Anybody has a chance at beating at 2290 at Blitz, especially if the
poor guy has never seen a Slav in his life, Anatoly Karpov not being
invented yet - and do people here really think Morphy could untangle
the Cheliabinsk over the board at Blitz speed?
ROFL.
What is taking a pasting is not Morphy's skill nor rank in the world.
It is people's cherished beliefs in just what that was.
The hilarious aspect of all this is even when some data is produced,
say from Nunn, it is not admitted to have sufficient basis to support
contrary views - whereas strong views about Morphy do not shift to any
degree. The single quantitative term used in all these threads to
differentiate players now and then is 'huge', as in huge difference.
So if Nunn's 350 to 1911 is true, then 400 for Morphy in 1870? And if
not, why not?
The point of the thread is to say How we Know What we Know. At least
off-ramp in a parallel thread has offered a basis [Nunn's] for making
'empiric' statements. Other writers seem like religious fanatics, and
talk about their beliefs, or even worse, a deliberate change of the
subject from Morphy to myself - and naturally raising one to God-like
status, and trashing the other. Neither based on empirical evidence,
sicnce after all, I don;t need to prove anything to people who are not
interested in proofs. Some people know my real ratings - some people
will merely doubt the people who know that...
Nunn would therefore relegate Elo's assessment of a Morphy to about
2300 in today's terms.
You could argue with Nunn that this is not so, or argue with me that I
would stand a chance at blitz, etc. That is all I ever said, and
AFAIK, it is not any exceptional sort of comment.
> The question of the comparative strength of old-time players is not
> going to be resolved here, but it can be debated without throwing a
> screaming fit whenever someone disagrees with you.
My thesis, plainly stated, is how we know what we know. How can you
disagree with a question. Presumably by characterising those who say
such-and-such is not knowlege, but belief and speculation as 'having a
screaming fit'.
> Is your position
> really so weak that you cannot defend it without engaging in
> personalities?- Hide quoted text -
Well - you seem to be well into it? And your record is to do that when
you got nothing else to say. Instead of doing that yourself, try to
tackle the idea of the thread - no one else has so far.
Phil Innes
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 18:35:05
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
[email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > After 20 years away from chess I achieved 2199 rating, in Vermont!
> >
> > =EF=BF=BD Then why does that not show on the USCF website?
>
> I have no idea, but I did have the label on CL which printed your
> rating on it. When was that?
>
> > You claim to have
> > been 2199 in 1995, yet USCF clearly shows you as first 2099, then
> > 2044, that year. That's a difference of 100 to 156 points.
>
> I thought I was only 2034 - you have me confused. OTOH, I really don't
> give a damn - thought I understand you do.
>
> > > > > My highest rating, same year was 2199.
> >
> > > > =EF=BF=BD Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your high=
est-ever
> > > > rating as 2139, and that back in 1991?
> >
> > > I don't know.
> >
> > =EF=BF=BD You mean you claim to have had a legitimate USCF rating of 21=
99 in
> > 1995?
>
> Was it 94, 93? Fucked if I know or care. What is it to you? You lied
> about your rating suggesting it was 2300+ Elo. Which is 2400+ USCF and
> - laugh - you were never even a B Player.
>
> Tell me though, my correspondence rating is 2222 or something - when
> you played correspondence, did you use books or computers? I don't. I
> just want to know something about you, and your interest in being
> honest.
>
> > Yet somehow USCF has screwed up, and cheated you out of 100
> > points? They don't show you as EVER having a 2199 rating, in any form
> > of chess, normal OTB, quick OTB, or postal. Please explain.
>
> I don't care Kingston. I don't care if they said I was 1750 like you.
> You care. Why do you care? Why did you outrageously lie here in
> public, and why do you corrupt this thread with your 1750 beliefs
> about things with no objective factors mentioned. Why do you always
> snip that?
>
> If you were honest I would tell you more. If you were better I would
> play you and demonstrate our difference. If you could talk objectively
> about chess history you would. Your are none of these in my opinion.
>
> > > But that is higher than what you said, 100 points
> > > higher, right bitch? I am, did you try to conceal and distort
> > > something by saying 2044? Looks like you did.
> >
> > =EF=BF=BD You consider it concealment and distortion to state your curr=
ent,
> > official USCF rating, which is in fact 2044? Sorry, Phil, but
> > "conceal" and "distort" seem to mean very different things to you than
> > they do to me.
>
> Yeah. I think you are right. You content yourself with the lowest base
> rating I achieved, and this, in your opinion gets rid of the topic in
> this thread. Morphy was some God, like Lasker was.
>
> Just doing that is enough to render you into patzer hell. That is my
> opinion, but it is also opinion of all strong players. Stick to being
> a Librarian Kingston, and if you have something to say on topic, try
> to stay to the subject. You have not even visited this one - like a
> patzer, you are clueless if Morphy was great or just beyond your
> personal level of comprehension.
>
> Morphy would get slaughtered these days. Get over it! You and everyone
> else - you got nothing to say, and if you want to lie down before the
> Great player, then that is your own prescription not to fight him. It
> is not the attitude of how to fight him. Get it?
>
>
> Phil Innes
>
> How come no-one noticed my nice joke on the Hungarian player, Peter
> Kelo?
Phil, this is all public record, and no amount of shouting and
blustering is going to change it.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=3D12529296
You don't have a correspondence rating with USCF or ICCF, and claiming
a 2222 rating from some unnamed source just makes you look like even
more of a posturing twit. Why do you persist in doing this sort of
thing? Inferiority complex?
The question of the comparative strength of old-time players is not
going to be resolved here, but it can be debated without throwing a
screaming fit whenever someone disagrees with you. Is your position
really so weak that you cannot defend it without engaging in
personalities?
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 16:53:39
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 7:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > After 20 years away from chess I achieved 2199 rating, in Vermont!
>
> > =A0 Then why does that not show on the USCF website?
>
> I have no idea, but I did have the label on CL which printed your
> rating on it. When was that?
>
> > You claim to have
> > been 2199 in 1995, yet USCF clearly shows you as first 2099, then
> > 2044, that year. That's a difference of 100 to 156 points.
>
> I thought I was only 2034 - you have me confused. OTOH, I really don't
> give a damn - thought I understand you do.
>
> > > > > My highest rating, same year was 2199.
>
> > > > =A0 Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your highest-ev=
er
> > > > rating as 2139, and that back in 1991?
>
> > > I don't know.
>
> > =A0 You mean you claim to have had a legitimate USCF rating of 2199 in
> > 1995?
>
> Was it 94, 93? Fucked if I know or care. What is it to you? You lied
> about your rating suggesting it was 2300+ Elo. Which is 2400+ USCF and
> - laugh - you were never even a B Player.
>
> Tell me though, my correspondence rating is 2222 or something - when
> you played correspondence, did you use books or computers? I don't. I
> just want to know something about you, and your interest in being
> honest.
>
> > Yet somehow USCF has screwed up, and cheated you out of 100
> > points? They don't show you as EVER having a 2199 rating, in any form
> > of chess, normal OTB, quick OTB, or postal. Please explain.
>
> I don't care Kingston. I don't care if they said I was 1750 like you.
> You care. Why do you care? Why did you outrageously lie here in
> public, and why do you corrupt this thread with your 1750 beliefs
> about things with no objective factors mentioned. Why do you always
> snip that?
>
> If you were honest I would tell you more. If you were better I would
> play you and demonstrate our difference. If you could talk objectively
> about chess history you would. Your are none of these in my opinion.
>
> > > But that is higher than what you said, 100 points
> > > higher, right bitch? I am, did you try to conceal and distort
> > > something by saying 2044? Looks like you did.
>
> > =A0 You consider it concealment and distortion to state your current,
> > official USCF rating, which is in fact 2044? Sorry, Phil, but
> > "conceal" and "distort" seem to mean very different things to you than
> > they do to me.
>
> Yeah. I think you are right. You content yourself with the lowest base
> rating I achieved, and this, in your opinion gets rid of the topic in
> this thread. Morphy was some God, like Lasker was.
>
> Just doing that is enough to render you into patzer hell. That is my
> opinion, but it is also opinion of all strong players. Stick to being
> a Librarian Kingston, and if you have something to say on topic, try
> to stay to the subject. You have not even visited this one - like a
> patzer, you are clueless if Morphy was great or just beyond your
> personal level of comprehension.
>
> Morphy would get slaughtered these days.
It seems rather that it is Innes getting slaughtered here, by his
own hand.
> Get over it! You and everyone
> else - you got nothing to say, and if you want to lie down before the
> Great player, then that is your own prescription not to fight him. It
> is not the attitude of how to fight him. Get it?
>
> Phil Innes
>
> How come no-one noticed my nice joke on the Hungarian player, Peter
> Kelo?
It is gratifying to see Phil Innes tacitly acknowledge that he lied
through his teeth today. Contrary to his explicit claim, he has never
had a USCF rating of 2199, in any form of chess. QED.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 16:10:39
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
>
> > After 20 years away from chess I achieved 2199 rating, in Vermont!
>
> =A0 Then why does that not show on the USCF website?
I have no idea, but I did have the label on CL which printed your
rating on it. When was that?
> You claim to have
> been 2199 in 1995, yet USCF clearly shows you as first 2099, then
> 2044, that year. That's a difference of 100 to 156 points.
I thought I was only 2034 - you have me confused. OTOH, I really don't
give a damn - thought I understand you do.
> > > > My highest rating, same year was 2199.
>
> > > =A0 Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your highest-ever
> > > rating as 2139, and that back in 1991?
>
> > I don't know.
>
> =A0 You mean you claim to have had a legitimate USCF rating of 2199 in
> 1995?
Was it 94, 93? Fucked if I know or care. What is it to you? You lied
about your rating suggesting it was 2300+ Elo. Which is 2400+ USCF and
- laugh - you were never even a B Player.
Tell me though, my correspondence rating is 2222 or something - when
you played correspondence, did you use books or computers? I don't. I
just want to know something about you, and your interest in being
honest.
> Yet somehow USCF has screwed up, and cheated you out of 100
> points? They don't show you as EVER having a 2199 rating, in any form
> of chess, normal OTB, quick OTB, or postal. Please explain.
I don't care Kingston. I don't care if they said I was 1750 like you.
You care. Why do you care? Why did you outrageously lie here in
public, and why do you corrupt this thread with your 1750 beliefs
about things with no objective factors mentioned. Why do you always
snip that?
If you were honest I would tell you more. If you were better I would
play you and demonstrate our difference. If you could talk objectively
about chess history you would. Your are none of these in my opinion.
> > But that is higher than what you said, 100 points
> > higher, right bitch? I am, did you try to conceal and distort
> > something by saying 2044? Looks like you did.
>
> =A0 You consider it concealment and distortion to state your current,
> official USCF rating, which is in fact 2044? Sorry, Phil, but
> "conceal" and "distort" seem to mean very different things to you than
> they do to me.
Yeah. I think you are right. You content yourself with the lowest base
rating I achieved, and this, in your opinion gets rid of the topic in
this thread. Morphy was some God, like Lasker was.
Just doing that is enough to render you into patzer hell. That is my
opinion, but it is also opinion of all strong players. Stick to being
a Librarian Kingston, and if you have something to say on topic, try
to stay to the subject. You have not even visited this one - like a
patzer, you are clueless if Morphy was great or just beyond your
personal level of comprehension.
Morphy would get slaughtered these days. Get over it! You and everyone
else - you got nothing to say, and if you want to lie down before the
Great player, then that is your own prescription not to fight him. It
is not the attitude of how to fight him. Get it?
Phil Innes
How come no-one noticed my nice joke on the Hungarian player, Peter
Kelo?
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 15:56:21
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 4:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 8, 3:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > The proposition is simple: if Morphy showed up now, what sort of
> > rating would he have if he continued to play as he did then. That's
> > it!
>
> =A0 I've addressed that to some extent already.
Vaguer strikes back. You addressed it by saying that Elo himself
didn't propose 2690 as Morphy's ability to compete right now. Morphy's
chess not being 2690 level currently. Only if we imagine he could
incorporate modern strategy and knowlege, etc...
Is that 'the extent' you addressed anything?
I ask this since this is my original proposition, and one you never
addressed already.
Phil
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 13:58:26
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
> My guess is that a well booked 2355 player might get a serious
> advantage with some sharp line.
How come we are inclined to guess so much? That is the question,
indeed, it is okay to guess if we don't have anything else to go in -
since that is human.
> =A0How likely he would be to win such a
> game is another story. =A0The closest comparison I can think of is the
> game Baragar-Elvest from an interzonal back in 1987 or so. Baragar
> (2300) got the bishop pair against the then-soviet superstar, and won
> a very well played game. =A0It seems to me that =A0when =A02300 players g=
et
> a serious advantage against 2600 players they do not manage to win,
> often not to draw, but there are exceptions.
Here is a game 100 years earlier than yours: Josef Noa lost to
Johannes Zukertort - Noa played just 15 moves. Take a look at it, and
see if you couldn't play Zukertort's moves in your sleep.
What is annoying about this level of response is that there is no
attempt to do other than believe things - like Morphy would crush you
- and this is in fact a significant factor in how you play, no? It is
a self-defeating and limiting attitude.
But what actually could Morphy do? Let's say I play a Sicilian
response, and let's say I know vastly more about options for White and
Black than anyone then? Where is Morphy going to find any action short
of move 20? What can he actually do? And my contention, remember, was
that at blitz I could take him because he would be unfamiliar with
resulting positons.
30 years ago I did this in Germany with a small group of very strong
German and Hungarian players. It equalises after a while, they deal
with your new stuff, and you learn something from them too.
The idea of the thread is to ask if Morphy manifested now, would knock
over master-players with no questions asked. But MY question is why
anyone will answer as they do.
I am dissapointed at your reply Bill, since a player of your level can
contain wild romantic tactical positions by not allowing them to
arise, no?
And if so, wherefore Morphy at Blitz these days. A street chess player
could take him.
Phil Innes
> William Hyde
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 18:29:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:58:26 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>But what actually could Morphy do? Let's say I play a Sicilian
>response, and let's say I know vastly more about options for White and
>Black than anyone then? Where is Morphy going to find any action short
>of move 20? What can he actually do? And my contention, remember, was
>that at blitz I could take him because he would be unfamiliar with
>resulting positons.
Most times, it's a mutual decision to go into the sharp theoretical
stuff.
If White were content with a playable game, a large number of
deviations from the book in the first few moves are possible. Try 1
P-K4 P-QB4, 2 P-QN3 N-QB3, 3 B-K2. I'd guess you'd both be pretty
much on your own.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 13:19:43
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 3:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> The proposition is simple: if Morphy showed up now, what sort of
> rating would he have if he continued to play as he did then. That's
> it!
I've addressed that to some extent already. But now your unsupported
claims, apparently mendacious claims, about *_your own_* rating draw
our attention.
> After 20 years away from chess I achieved 2199 rating, in Vermont!
Then why does that not show on the USCF website? You claim to have
been 2199 in 1995, yet USCF clearly shows you as first 2099, then
2044, that year. That's a difference of 100 to 156 points.
> > > My highest rating, same year was 2199.
>
> > =A0 Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your highest-ever
> > rating as 2139, and that back in 1991?
>
> I don't know.
You mean you claim to have had a legitimate USCF rating of 2199 in
1995? Yet somehow USCF has screwed up, and cheated you out of 100
points? They don't show you as EVER having a 2199 rating, in any form
of chess, normal OTB, quick OTB, or postal. Please explain.
> But that is higher than what you said, 100 points
> higher, right bitch? I am, did you try to conceal and distort
> something by saying 2044? Looks like you did.
You consider it concealment and distortion to state your current,
official USCF rating, which is in fact 2044? Sorry, Phil, but
"conceal" and "distort" seem to mean very different things to you than
they do to me.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 12:58:38
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 2:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 8, 12:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> =A0http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
I didn't know about this. Amazingly, I am still in it.
The rating given is indeed my final USCF rating of 2159. I am *not*
the William T Hyde with a rating of 1060, I swear it. Though he is
listed as being from Texas, which is where I was living at the time.
Gotta give that lad some lessons - he's damaging the brand!
Morphy would wipe the floor with me, but then, I know almost no
openings. Against a well booked 2355 player he would effectively be
playing a much, much stronger player for the first n moves, until he
went out of the player's book.
My guess is that a well booked 2355 player might get a serious
advantage with some sharp line. How likely he would be to win such a
game is another story. The closest comparison I can think of is the
game Baragar-Elvest from an interzonal back in 1987 or so. Baragar
(2300) got the bishop pair against the then-soviet superstar, and won
a very well played game. It seems to me that when 2300 players get
a serious advantage against 2600 players they do not manage to win,
often not to draw, but there are exceptions.
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 12:37:57
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 2:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Dec 8, 12:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Remotely possible, but my money would be on a Morphy sweep.
>
> > Dear Kinston,
>
> > this thread is not about what you would believe. Its about the basis
> > of understanding things.
>
> =A0 Phil, if understanding were your goal, either in this specific
> instance or in general, you would not cloud things with obfuscatory
> nonsense. You would not be so careless as to egregiously
All them big words don't mean you are not as dumb as Otto.
Tell me you understand what I wrote in the first place, and stuff your
opinions anywhere you like. This is not about you or me.
The proposition is simple: if Morphy showed up now, what sort of
rating would he have if he continued to play as he did then. That's
it!
It is NOT Elo's idea of would-be good if he caught up... its a
straight assessment of his chess, measured in current terms.
That is the main issue, the rest of this 'commentary' is your ususal
introductory material based on your general incomprehension, and
therefore, nothing really to do with what I wrote, but some
description of your own process, prejudice, likes and dislikes.
> misunderstand, or so dishonest as to deliberately misconstrue,
> straightforward statements by myself and others. Understanding is
> rarely your goal; preening yourself often is. This thread is no
> different.
How magnificently vague! How about you get off your opinions and see
if you have anything to say on topic. That will be difficult for you,
since you are not very good at identifying what the topic is, and also
you can't follow simple instructions about what would add to topic.
As above, see if you can attend the main issue, rather than your own
usual pissy posts, claiming that others like you are...
Because that is about YOU, and indeed, about them too.
> > Do you in fact understand the difference?
>
> =A0 Between Morphy's level of chess skill and yours? Yes.
No Kingston. The sentence I wrote does that reference that. What you
wrote does for the usual reasons - you are a bitch, but not a very
bright one. No point me arguing what you don't even understand is the
issue.
> > > Before
> > > the 1st American Chess Congress in 1857, Morphy passed the time
> > > playing a lengthy offhand series with John William Schulten, to whom
> > > Elo gives an historical rating of 2335,
>
> > Laugh - but we just got through saying that not a current 2335. Right?
> > Elo did not estimate by current performance standards. I see you
> > return to his estimate, as if they were current performance standards.
>
> =A0 No, I'm actually being charitable toward you, temporarily accepting,
> for the sake of argument, that your current 2044 rating might be
> roughly equivalent to Schulten's 2335 back in 1857. That means I'm
> either whacking almost 300 points off his rating, or adding 300 to
> yours.
After 20 years away from chess I achieved 2199 rating, in Vermont! Do
you know how hard that is to do? You think I am a late developer
getting that score at 45 years old, when working 60 hours a week?
But if you want to insist on YOUR topic, and ignore the fact that
Schulten did not have a rating... you will continue to do so - since
you proudly mix up everything, not attending to whether this is a
fanstasy rating or not, since you just don't care, do you?
> > > compared to Phil's current
> > > 2044 (which is as of 1995; his real strength now is likely lower).
>
> > My highest rating, same year was 2199.
>
> =A0 Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your highest-ever
> rating as 2139, and that back in 1991?
I don't know. But that is higher than what you said, 100 points
higher, right bitch? I am, did you try to conceal and distort
something by saying 2044? Looks like you did. Looks like you did it
deliberately, and I don't even care. You worry about it if you want -
but that is your trip.
> Since then your rating has
> generally declined, to 2096 in December 1991, up to 2114 in 1992 but
> back down to 2099 in 1994, and then to 2044 in April 1995. In case
> your memory needs refreshing, check for yourself:
I don;t play many rated games anymore. Sorry! I play blitz on-line and
correspondence. So what is that to you Kingston? Is it because you
hiked your own rating
FIVE HUNDRED POINTS?
And now you resent those who pointed that out?
> =A0http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>
> =A0 Enter "Innes, Phil" and it will take you to the relevant pages.
>
> > I now play much more than that,
> > and in fact have improved.
>
> =A0 That's as may be. As I said, Phil, we're a matter-of-fact bunch
> here, and we like to see objective evidence. The USCF site does not
> provide it. Can you?
You some sort of interrogator bitch?
What the hell is it to you? You are the ratings liar Kingston. 500
points! In fact 500+ points. Let the people understand the diversion
here from any understanding of Morphy's play.
> > =A0But again, this is not about what Taylor
> > Kingston chooses to believe. Good grief! What next? An Elo for Jesus?
>
> =A0 How about an honest-to-Jesus Elo for Innes, rather than just his
> unsupported claims?
Bitch-off stalker - why have you any interest in the truth of
anything. You have already lied about my USCF rating this day! Because
I dare say I am not afraid of a historically strong player at blitz.
> > > Among those with whom Morphy played a significant number of games,
> > > Schulten is perhaps closest to Innes in strength (and that's giving
> > > Innes a very large benefit of the doubt). Morphy beat Schulten +23 -1
> > > =3D0. I'd say Innes would be very lucky to win even one game out of 2=
4.
>
> > At Blitz?
>
> =A0 Any TL you like, my money's on Morphy.
Another belief. Absolutely no intereaction with the topic whatever -
in fact, Kingston pretends he can't understand it, because I would
crush him at chess, and he daren't show up to test it.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 12:12:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 12:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Among those with whom Morphy played a significant number of games,
> Schulten is perhaps closest to Innes in strength (and that's giving
> Innes a very large benefit of the doubt). Morphy beat Schulten +23 -1
> =3D0. I'd say Innes would be very lucky to win even one game out of 24.
What about Anon? Is it not true that both he
and Mr. No Name are better approximations of
the actual (not imaginary) strength of Dr. IMnes?
Now, if you want to talk about how Mr. Morphy
might do against the imaginary, 2450-rated
nearly-an-IM Innes, that's another story. A bit
of hocus pocus and we could chop PM down
a bit, giving this imaginary opponent credit for a
few theoretical "takedowns" via a vast collection
of novelties and openings surprises. But once
again, I cannot help bot being reminded of the
recent schellackings by tactician Rybka of a
host of wannabee-IMs in odds games.
One thing I will say in favor of Dr. Imnes'
random arguments, however, is that for many
of us, our impressions of the famous players
of old are molded in part by just a small
selection of their games-- often their very best
games in fact. Would that that were true for
all of us... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 12:00:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 12:47=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Thinking like a human" is neither the point nor the goal. =A0Coming up
> with the same move or at least a very similar set of candidate moves
> in any given position from the set of Morphy's serious games is the
> goal. =A0The mechanisms by which these moves are determined may be
> completely different.
I agree. But this kind of approach is doomed
to failure because as I already pointed out, no
computer can think like a human does.
Let's look at Rybka, for instance. She sees my
deliberate attempts to avoid a draw as "random,
stupid blunders". But they are not random; they
are carefully-calculated blunders by me. It is
simply not possible for today's machines to try
and "emulate" my play without an ability to first
discern the thinking behind my moves-- and this
implies full knowledge of the past history of my
games against particular opponents, as well as
motives and even, hypothetically speaking, any
flaws which of course do not in reality exist in my
thinking (but which would for all other humans).
May I remind you of the movie 2001: A Space
Odyssey, in which even the HAL9000 computer
failed to accurately account for the "moves" of
its adversary. Whenever computers have tried
to dumb themselves down to the low level of
humanity, they have always failed. Like man,
computers have got to know their limitations.
My thinking is that there is no way in hell a
stupid computer can emulate my play; no way,
no how. And the same goes for PM. The
best you can do is approximate the /strength/
of a given player at chess, and this would
require eliminating all questions of style from
the equation.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 11:23:57
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 1:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 8, 12:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Remotely possible, but my money would be on a Morphy sweep.
>
> Dear Kinston,
>
> this thread is not about what you would believe. Its about the basis
> of understanding things.
Phil, if understanding were your goal, either in this specific
instance or in general, you would not cloud things with obfuscatory
nonsense. You would not be so careless as to egregiously
misunderstand, or so dishonest as to deliberately misconstrue,
straightforward statements by myself and others. Understanding is
rarely your goal; preening yourself often is. This thread is no
different.
> Do you in fact understand the difference?
Between Morphy's level of chess skill and yours? Yes.
> > Before
> > the 1st American Chess Congress in 1857, Morphy passed the time
> > playing a lengthy offhand series with John William Schulten, to whom
> > Elo gives an historical rating of 2335,
>
> Laugh - but we just got through saying that not a current 2335. Right?
> Elo did not estimate by current performance standards. I see you
> return to his estimate, as if they were current performance standards.
No, I'm actually being charitable toward you, temporarily accepting,
for the sake of argument, that your current 2044 rating might be
roughly equivalent to Schulten's 2335 back in 1857. That means I'm
either whacking almost 300 points off his rating, or adding 300 to
yours.
> > compared to Phil's current
> > 2044 (which is as of 1995; his real strength now is likely lower).
>
> My highest rating, same year was 2199.
Really now. Then why does the USCF website show your highest-ever
rating as 2139, and that back in 1991? Since then your rating has
generally declined, to 2096 in December 1991, up to 2114 in 1992 but
back down to 2099 in 1994, and then to 2044 in April 1995. In case
your memory needs refreshing, check for yourself:
http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
Enter "Innes, Phil" and it will take you to the relevant pages.
> I now play much more than that,
> and in fact have improved.
That's as may be. As I said, Phil, we're a matter-of-fact bunch
here, and we like to see objective evidence. The USCF site does not
provide it. Can you?
> But again, this is not about what Taylor
> Kingston chooses to believe. Good grief! What next? An Elo for Jesus?
How about an honest-to-Jesus Elo for Innes, rather than just his
unsupported claims?
> > Among those with whom Morphy played a significant number of games,
> > Schulten is perhaps closest to Innes in strength (and that's giving
> > Innes a very large benefit of the doubt). Morphy beat Schulten +23 -1
> > =3D0. I'd say Innes would be very lucky to win even one game out of 24.
>
> At Blitz?
Any TL you like, my money's on Morphy.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 10:29:09
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 12:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 8, 11:44=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
> > > isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
> > > position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
> > > Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
> > > unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride,
>
> > Not my words! And of course, you say I deride what you just got
> > through saying in a previous post is unprovable. So instead of
> > attempting to look at how we know Morphy's strength, we get straw-man
> > crap.
>
> > > but if he lost
> > > he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
> > > position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
> > > are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
> > > accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
> > > would lose as well.
>
> > I did not say I would win! I said I would have a chance to win - I
> > would even expect to win a game or two.
>
> =A0 Remotely possible, but my money would be on a Morphy sweep.
Dear Kinston,
this thread is not about what you would believe. Its about the basis
of understanding things. Do you in fact understand the difference?
> Before
> the 1st American Chess Congress in 1857, Morphy passed the time
> playing a lengthy offhand series with John William Schulten, to whom
> Elo gives an historical rating of 2335,
Laugh - but we just got through saying that not a current 2335. Right?
Elo did not estimate by current performance standards. I see you
return to his estimate, as if they were current performance standards.
> compared to Phil's current
> 2044 (which is as of 1995; his real strength now is likely lower).
My highest rating, same year was 2199. I now play much more than that,
and in fact have improved. But again, this is not about what Taylor
Kingston chooses to believe. Good grief! What next? An Elo for Jesus?
> Among those with whom Morphy played a significant number of games,
> Schulten is perhaps closest to Innes in strength (and that's giving
> Innes a very large benefit of the doubt). Morphy beat Schulten +23 -1
> =3D0. I'd say Innes would be very lucky to win even one game out of 24.
At Blitz?
> > Get over it.
>
> =A0 Nothing for me to get over. I've never had any illusions about how
> I'd do against Morphy: I'd get creamed.- Hide quoted text -
You believe. And that is not the subject of this thread.
Phil Innes
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 10:17:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > Morphy, of course, played against the Sicilian multiple times; I am
> > > > not sure what this is supposed to mean. He was well booked on openi=
ngs
> > > > of his time, and the Sicilian was a well studied and much discussed
> > > > opening of the time.
> > Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
> > isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
> > position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
> > Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
> > unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride, but if he lost
> > he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
> > position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
> > are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
> > accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
> > would lose as well.
> =A0 Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing to
> players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746.
I knew it! So then, even I can be expected to
smash the great nearly-an-imp, on occasion.
> Thus even if the real strength of our hypothetically resurrected Morphy
> were 800-900 points lower than Elo's estimated 2690 (and I seriously
> doubt it is), Paul would have a good chance of beating our Phil
Instead of magically transporting Mr. Morphy
to modern times to play against all-booked-up
grandmasters, why not just magically transport
Dr. IMnes himself back in time? Conside this:
he could then be happy in his delusions of
being a nearly-a-real-contender; the oldsters
would get to play against a player from the
future who has a known rating and lots of
/crazy ideas/ about how the game ought to be
played; and all of us here at rgc would be a lot
happier. I call that win-win. The only thing
left to do is help the poor chap pack up his
things.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 09:54:05
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 11:44=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
> > isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
> > position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
> > Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
> > unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride,
>
> Not my words! And of course, you say I deride what you just got
> through saying in a previous post is unprovable. So instead of
> attempting to look at how we know Morphy's strength, we get straw-man
> crap.
>
> > but if he lost
> > he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
> > position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
> > are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
> > accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
> > would lose as well.
>
> I did not say I would win! I said I would have a chance to win - I
> would even expect to win a game or two.
Remotely possible, but my money would be on a Morphy sweep. Before
the 1st American Chess Congress in 1857, Morphy passed the time
playing a lengthy offhand series with John William Schulten, to whom
Elo gives an historical rating of 2335, compared to Phil's current
2044 (which is as of 1995; his real strength now is likely lower).
Among those with whom Morphy played a significant number of games,
Schulten is perhaps closest to Innes in strength (and that's giving
Innes a very large benefit of the doubt). Morphy beat Schulten +23 -1
=3D0. I'd say Innes would be very lucky to win even one game out of 24.
> Get over it.
Nothing for me to get over. I've never had any illusions about how
I'd do against Morphy: I'd get creamed.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 14:14:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 9, 12:10=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0Mr. Morphy would squash him like a chicken
> > in the road. =A0
> Something on which we clearly agree. =A0But what sort of chicken? =A0A
> leghorn, a buttercup, an Orpington? =A0We need precision here.
As a person nominated to run for the USCF
board of directors, I expect *your team* to do the
grunt work of sussing out such details.
I hate to say it, but an effective strategy in your
campaign might well be "vote for me, if you don't
want Sam Sloan on the board". Or, how about
this one: "we like Mike!"? (Sounds vaguely
familiar, doesn't it?)
As for Dr. IMnes, he does not remind me of the
famous chicken and movie star, Foghorn Leghorn.
No, that guy had real personality! Dr. IMnes is all
bluster; he's all hat and no cattle; all hot air and no
balloon. Indeed, I believe Dr. IMnes is likely to go
down in history as a chap with no entry in the
books, although he might appear in some obscure
medical references on mental disorders... .
The great Paul Morphy ought not to be compared
to idiots and buffoons, but rather to modern day
grandmasters (generously ignoring any overlap of
the two groups). Instead of lurking behind his
remote terminal with his Pelikan book at his side
like our Dr. IMnes, Mr. Morphy braved the crossing
of an ocean to face off against his most worthy
opponents, man to man, face to face, like a grizzly
bear. Dr. IMnes is afeard to even play a few
offhand games against his fellow Vermontian, Mr.
Kingston-- a Class A player. In sum, even
placing the name "Innes" in the same sentence
with "Morphy" is an egregious crime against
humankind.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 08:44:27
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
> Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
> isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
> position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
> Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
> unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride,
Not my words! And of course, you say I deride what you just got
through saying in a previous post is unprovable. So instead of
attempting to look at how we know Morphy's strength, we get straw-man
crap.
> but if he lost
> he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
> position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
> are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
> accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
> would lose as well.
I did not say I would win! I said I would have a chance to win - I
would even expect to win a game or two.
Get over it.
Phil Innes
> Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 08:41:56
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:11=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 8:29=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Morphy, of course, played against the Sicilian multiple times; I am
> > > > not sure what this is supposed to mean. He was well booked on openi=
ngs
> > > > of his time, and the Sicilian was a well studied and much discussed
> > > > opening of the time.
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > You are perhaps a little innocent of the Sicilian of thos times? It
> > > was the same only in name. The point is that he is not booked on
> > > openings of /our/ time - what is there to be unsure about in that
> > > statement?
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
> > isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
> > position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
> > Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
> > unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride, but if he lost
> > he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
> > position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
> > are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
> > accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
> > would lose as well.
>
> =A0 Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing to
> players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746. Thus
> even if the real strength of our hypothetically resurrected Morphy
> were 800-900 points lower than Elo's estimated 2690 (and I seriously
> doubt it is), Paul would have a good chance of beating our Phil.- Hide qu=
oted text -
I am sure I've lost to lower players than that. But how come Kingston
doesn't put up 2250 players I've beaten? Like, I beat the guy who beat
Frank Marshall, etc., at full time control too.
Even so, for someone who was 1800 USCF at best, and then had the gall
to suggest this was 'equivalent of 2230+ Elo' [note the ELO!!] while
not mentioning this was a postal estimate or conversion [!] one really
wonders if Our Taylor actually cares for the subject of ratings at all
- or if once again some hero of his has been questioned. One of his
heros is currently appearing in the Washington times, Lasker being
praised for his non-romantic style, which - to refute 'anyone can
learn given the right resources' the GM commentator says this is
actually far from the truth.
Kingston first tells me off by saying that Morphy was 2690 Elo. Then
on being checked, says this was on some other than our Elo scale and
not an actual measurement of Morphy's skill at all. If was Dr. Elo's
supposition that if... etc.
Then he connects my lowest performance with an estimated Morphy's
best.
Now - at Blitz, he has nothing to say about a master player taking on
Morphy. Anyone has a chance at Blitz to knock down the big guys. I
have. But then again, all actual players have. Speculators don't
believe its possible, but what's that to real players?
Phil Innes
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 09:43:00
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:41:56 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> � Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing to
>> players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746.
>... But how come Kingston
>doesn't put up 2250 players I've beaten? Like, I beat the guy who beat
>Frank Marshall, etc., at full time control too.
Because it isn't referenced on the USCF website. Where it is
referenced? I have a feeling Taylor will acknowledge the result if
you show a working link, or a periodical reference, or a tournament
name/date/time, etc.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 07:26:18
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 10:11=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 8:29=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Morphy, of course, played against the Sicilian multiple times; I am
> > > not sure what this is supposed to mean. He was well booked on opening=
s
> > > of his time, and the Sicilian was a well studied and much discussed
> > > opening of the time.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > You are perhaps a little innocent of the Sicilian of thos times? It
> > was the same only in name. The point is that he is not booked on
> > openings of /our/ time - what is there to be unsure about in that
> > statement?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
> isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
> position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
> Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
> unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride, but if he lost
> he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
> position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
> are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
> accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
> would lose as well.
Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing to
players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746. Thus
even if the real strength of our hypothetically resurrected Morphy
were 800-900 points lower than Elo's estimated 2690 (and I seriously
doubt it is), Paul would have a good chance of beating our Phil.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 07:11:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 8:29=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Morphy, of course, played against the Sicilian multiple times; I am
> > not sure what this is supposed to mean. He was well booked on openings
> > of his time, and the Sicilian was a well studied and much discussed
> > opening of the time.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> You are perhaps a little innocent of the Sicilian of thos times? It
> was the same only in name. The point is that he is not booked on
> openings of /our/ time - what is there to be unsure about in that
> statement?
>
> Phil Innes
Morphy also knew forgotten lines that you are not booked up on; it
isn't clear who wins in these opening battles. If he didn't like the
position he got into in one game, he would switch to another line.
Your assertion that he would crumble before a Sveshnikov is as
unprovable as any of the other assumptions you deride, but if he lost
he would simply trot out 2.f4 or some other line until he got a
position he was comfortable with. The bottom line is that unless you
are much stronger than I believe you are, you will play less
accurately than Morphy and lose. That is not intended as an insult; I
would lose as well.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 20:00:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 9:29=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >But what actually could Morphy do? Let's say I play a Sicilian
> >response, and let's say I know vastly more about options for White and
> >Black than anyone then? Where is Morphy going to find any action short
> >of move 20? What can he actually do? And my contention, remember, was
> >that at blitz I could take him because he would be unfamiliar with
> >resulting positons.
> Most times, it's a mutual decision to go into the sharp theoretical
> stuff.
> If White were content with a playable game, a large number of
> deviations from the book in the first few moves are possible. =A0Try 1
> P-K4 P-QB4, 2 P-QN3 N-QB3, 3 B-K2. =A0I'd guess you'd both be pretty
> much on your own.
Now you've completely lost the thread. By
blindly accepting Dr. 2450's delusional ravings
regarding his imaginary strength, you went on
the defensive, trying to work around that which
only exists in a very delusional mind.
The fact is, Dr. IMnes is the one who is in
need of help here; Mr. Morphy would squash
him like a chicken in the road. In fact, it is
expected that PM would likely refuse to play
the patzer (or USCF Expert), except at some
sort of odds. Now then, we can discuss the
match of QN-odds (Louis-the-nose favors Dr.
IMnes at 3:1), or the odds of a match in
which PM gives odds of only pawn-and-move
(Mackie favors PM at 5:1). By the way, not
paying one's gambling debt wins a free set of
cement galoshes-- no government bail-outs
here.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 21:10:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:00:55 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Morphy would squash
>him like a chicken in the road.
Something on which we clearly agree. But what sort of chicken? A
leghorn, a buttercup, an Orpington? We need precision here.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 06:29:43
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
> Morphy, of course, played against the Sicilian multiple times; I am
> not sure what this is supposed to mean. He was well booked on openings
> of his time, and the Sicilian was a well studied and much discussed
> opening of the time.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
You are perhaps a little innocent of the Sicilian of thos times? It
was the same only in name. The point is that he is not booked on
openings of /our/ time - what is there to be unsure about in that
statement?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 06:03:59
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 12:13=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now, how do you
> suppose these IMs of Dr. IMnes would feel
> sitting down to play Paul Morphy for the first
> time? =A0 Yup: intimidated; scared.
Quite possibly a little bit of projection is going on here. I have sat
down to play IMs and GMs too. I wasn't 'scared'. Besides, I had a
massive psychological advantage since it is not likely when you play a
higher rated player you will win, but that means you have nothing to
lose either [no shame in losing], whereas the poor higher rated player
has everything to lose. Therefore you go for it!
What would be more imtimidating is to play, say, Judit Polgar or Peter
Kelo, and do the Sicilian thing - since that pair practice that
opening with White and Black, and scare the bejeezus out of the top 10
in the world with it.
But I'm not talking such advanced ideas - I am wondering if there is
any reason at all to suppose I couldn't sit down and play Blitz
against Morphy and not expect to win? And its the reasons I'm looking
for.
>
> =A0 USCF Expert Dr. IMnes is so badly out-
> classed by PM that he must take extreme
> measures to even imagine himself as a
> PM opponent. =A0 First, he pretends to be a
> 2450-rated nearly-an-IM who is now a tad
> rusty.
Actually, I played at that level once - and its you who are (a)
jealous, and (b) you who pretend and project upon that. In fact, you
who are obsessed with it.
> =A0 Next, he tries to dumb-down PM by
> asking how he might do if he were forced
> to play without any knowledge of modern
> theory.
Which is to say, to play Morphy as he actually was. That it what i
said.,
Now, not only am I not afraid of Morphy as he was - especially at
Blitz, I would expect to win! And that is no patzer's comment. And I
would expect to win because I have done it before.
> =A0 Third, he questions the one thing
> which makes a mockery of this sort of
> mis-match-- the ratings system itself. =A0It
> may seem to be a lot of work for a mere
> imaginary dream match, but for the good
> doctor, it's well worth it in order to stay in
> his state of denial.
This is perhaps the 5th commentary by Kelp-bot who completely ignores
any basis of fact to present his opinions, and furthermore doesn't
have the honesty to admit his own opinion, that he would be scared!
Instead he has to write my opinion for me.
If you want to be a strong chess player, you better start makiing your
own moves! Which is like owning your own opinion.
Otherwise you remain a patzer, have heroes, unsubstantiatable
opinions, and have to pretend you are a secret Morphy or Rybka.
Kelp-bot should get a pair of balls.
Phil Innes
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 05:53:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 7:44=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:31=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A quick remark on the question of Morphy playing at fast speeds. It is
> > a misunderstanding to say that players of the past were slower, since
> > they did not use clocks; indeed, clocks seemed unnecessary for most
> > play because most players used much less time than what is standard in
> > current tournaments. There were some notable exceptions, but these
> > were always noted at the time.
>
> <.>
>
> > It is impossible to prove that Morphy would be good at speed chess,
> > but there seems to be absolutely no reason to believe that he would
> > have a problem with it. For what it's worth, when Labourdonnais was
> > challenged by a ridiculously fast player to play lightning chess, he
> > had no problem annihilating his faster opponent when forced to match
> > his speed.
>
> Here is the matter: It is usual for top players to perform well at
> speed chess. I merely make a distinction in saying that unless there
> is data, arguing from the general to the specific is not an entirely
> sound process.
>
> This becomes important when there is an assumption that Morphy /must/
> be a good fast player, eg. And this follows a tendency to glamorise
> 'Greats' in chess.
>
> But Jerry Spinrad has it right, it is not possible to prove it, and in
> fact, it is little substantiated belief.
>
> > Morphy also seemed able to adjust his tactics to play different types
> > of opponents; you shouldn't take my word on it, but Steinitz discussed
> > this rather extensively in his comments on Morphy. For what it's
> > worth, I think it is fair to discuss whether Morphy would be beaten by
> > a current "average" grandmaster.
>
> Right; well maybe we will get to that with Elo's system, but not Elo's
> actual method - which contained this assumption that Morphy, or any
> historical player, could take in modern chess... etc. Actual game
> strength of the period was therefore NOT measured by Dr. Elo.
>
> > I know, having analyzed both my own
> > games and Morphy's games for errors with a computer, that he would
> > utterly annihilate me (high class A/low expert over the games
> > analyzed).
>
> I made a more specific statement: I said that in Blitz or even 10
> minute chess, I have no sense that Morphy would take a modern master
> player - as if it were no contest. Just being confronted with the
> Sicilian might make his eye's water.
Morphy, of course, played against the Sicilian multiple times; I am
not sure what this is supposed to mean. He was well booked on openings
of his time, and the Sicilian was a well studied and much discussed
opening of the time.
Jerry Spinrad
>
> While I do not mean to disrespect Morphy, nevertheless there is not
> any evidence that he would do particularly well, and therefore when we
> generalise upon players of the past, we might also qualify our
> opinions by admitting that we actually don't know from any numerical
> basis how to justify our opinions.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > The best I could hope for is that he would take it easy in
> > his first game and let me win or draw. The one match opponent of
> > Morphy I think I match up positively against
> > is Mongredien, but after the first game there was really no contest.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 05:44:52
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 7, 7:31=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> A quick remark on the question of Morphy playing at fast speeds. It is
> a misunderstanding to say that players of the past were slower, since
> they did not use clocks; indeed, clocks seemed unnecessary for most
> play because most players used much less time than what is standard in
> current tournaments. There were some notable exceptions, but these
> were always noted at the time.
<. >
> It is impossible to prove that Morphy would be good at speed chess,
> but there seems to be absolutely no reason to believe that he would
> have a problem with it. For what it's worth, when Labourdonnais was
> challenged by a ridiculously fast player to play lightning chess, he
> had no problem annihilating his faster opponent when forced to match
> his speed.
Here is the matter: It is usual for top players to perform well at
speed chess. I merely make a distinction in saying that unless there
is data, arguing from the general to the specific is not an entirely
sound process.
This becomes important when there is an assumption that Morphy /must/
be a good fast player, eg. And this follows a tendency to glamorise
'Greats' in chess.
But Jerry Spinrad has it right, it is not possible to prove it, and in
fact, it is little substantiated belief.
> Morphy also seemed able to adjust his tactics to play different types
> of opponents; you shouldn't take my word on it, but Steinitz discussed
> this rather extensively in his comments on Morphy. For what it's
> worth, I think it is fair to discuss whether Morphy would be beaten by
> a current "average" grandmaster.
Right; well maybe we will get to that with Elo's system, but not Elo's
actual method - which contained this assumption that Morphy, or any
historical player, could take in modern chess... etc. Actual game
strength of the period was therefore NOT measured by Dr. Elo.
> I know, having analyzed both my own
> games and Morphy's games for errors with a computer, that he would
> utterly annihilate me (high class A/low expert over the games
> analyzed).
I made a more specific statement: I said that in Blitz or even 10
minute chess, I have no sense that Morphy would take a modern master
player - as if it were no contest. Just being confronted with the
Sicilian might make his eye's water.
While I do not mean to disrespect Morphy, nevertheless there is not
any evidence that he would do particularly well, and therefore when we
generalise upon players of the past, we might also qualify our
opinions by admitting that we actually don't know from any numerical
basis how to justify our opinions.
Phil Innes
> The best I could hope for is that he would take it easy in
> his first game and let me win or draw. The one match opponent of
> Morphy I think I match up positively against
> is Mongredien, but after the first game there was really no contest.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 05:27:25
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
> > I always like your metaphors - but I do not share your opinion of
> > people's intelligence who attend here.
>
> =A0 There is definite intelligence in this group, and my remarks were
> partly tongue-in-cheek and also aimed at myself. However, "knowing how
> we know" involves getting into metaphysics, epistomology,
> phenomenology and other such philosophical stuff, which I don't think
> is this group's forte.
Just a note - I am asking if there is any method present to support
assertions other than belief. To be a philospher doesn't mean you have
to be a tragic gloomy German bloke from the C19th - it just means you
reflect on your experience.
> On the whole, certain exceptions
> notwithstanding, we're a pretty down-to-earth group, accepting mundane
> reality at face value and relying primarily on empirical proof to
> "know" something, with logic playing an important supporting role.
I am unsure that is what we do. I see lots of belief s here - strongly
argued without a shred of empirical evidence - in fact the thread
before this one seemed to be 100% belief-based.
> > > =A0 One is on firmer ground comparing the rating Elo gave Morphy to t=
he
> > > ratings he gave Morphy's contemporaries.
>
> > No one is not. One is still on the same speculatory grounds.
>
> =A0 You think Elo's relative rankings of Morphy and his contemporaries
> are on no firmer ground than airy speculation about what Morphy would
> do now? I must strongly disagree.
Yes I do think Elo's retrograde evaluations are shaky - or better
said, they are not the same sort of idea as Elo-ratings proper.
You will have noted the interesting report in a similar thread by off-
ramp, representing Nunn's researches? I think he cited Karlsbad - and
I think 'empirical' Frtiz showed much bad from the players of those
times.
That tournament comprised many top players of the era, and tose
players of those times would likely sink quickly against the top world
players today, no?
<... >
> > Otherwise Elo himself confounds two different systems; our
> > current one, and where none actually existed - and over 100 years
> > ago.
>
> =A0 No, I don't recall that Elo made any claim that his historical
> ratings constituted any absolute standard of measurement.
Well... are you not in agreement with me then?
(Never mind terms like 'absolute' to decribe a relative system) to
call historical Elo measurements Elo-ratings seems to deliberately
confound one thing with another, so that claims for Morphy for example
DO NOT indicate that Morphy would be a 2680 player in 2008, on the
same scale.
Elo had a go at evaluating historical players only in relation to each
other - and also before the chess computer age got going.
> He readily
> admits that a mid-19th century player would be out of his depth among
> modern GMs: "If the Anderssen of 1864 were matched with a modern
> master who figuratively has at his fingertips the chess analysis of
> the intervening century, he would be at a huge disadvantage." (The
> Rating of Chessplayers, p. 81)
'huge'
While I agree, can we not get a little closer than such a general
term. Pity that Nunn's study could was not big enough to compare 1929
with 1969 and 1999. At least Fritz 5 [which he used] would have been a
uniform basis for measurement and could perhaps offer us a
quantitative evaluation.
I don't need Elo to tell me that these historical games were flawed,
or even somewhat over-reliant on defender going wrong in order for
brilliancies to occur. It seems very evident that modern chess has
much more defensive resources available to even class-players.
Therefore, the idea of this thread was to attempt something more that
'huge' type comments. Is the intent to say that no one at all attained
a GM level as it would be today in the C19th? Were there even IMs
then?
> =A0 On the other hand, he says "To devalue Anderssen because he 'knew no
> theory' would be as ridiculous to devalue Galileo because he knew no
> gravitational theory. To criticise an Anderssen combination on the
> grounds of positional play would be as to criticise a Renaissance
> painting on the values of the impressionists.
Well, I haven't introduced that argument or 'criticism'. Its not about
style, its about results of style. In fact, there is no criticism of
the play of Romantic era players - there is a question about what
level they achieved together as we would understand it on today's
scale.
I take it as axiomatic that a master-level player then should not be
assumed to be more than a master level player now. Just because a
C19th player was in the top group of players doesn't mean we should
think of the player as a GM, or IM... ?
> The performance of an
> individual should be evaluated by the standards of his own milieu, and
> not of a later one." (ibid.)
I note the moral imperative. I am saying that the evaluation of a
player should not be /confused/ with that of a later one. And
logically, we /must/ assess performances of other eras by our own
standards - you can't ignore your own understanding of chess, or that
of "Frtiz" either.
This doesn't mean that such players be condemned - but it does mean
they should be acknowledged as the best in the world AND that was
generally of such-and-such a rating.
> > In terms of the player of the same epoch, it may be possible to
> > numerically grade them as below - but is this the same scale as now?
> > That is the question I ask.
>
> =A0 It's pretty much the same Elo rating system, if that's what you
> mean, calculated by Dr. Elo himself.
Elo graded them on the same scale as now - but his ratings are
certainly contentious. His method much similar then and now, is Okay,
but did he over-rate them?
By eye, so to speak, this is not GM chess. So to attribute GM ratings
to these players seems to miss a necessary reconcilliation of that
time and ours. Specifically, saying that Morphy was 2690 means
something different than his level of chess would be 2690 now. And
this is admitted - the difference was 'huge', so the right way about
this is to consider if Elo over-rated historical players, and attend
to the means of reasessing Elo's historical analysis.
> =A0 If I understand Elo correctly, he considers his historical ratings
> as comparable to today's ratings only in the impossible and
> hypothetical case where the earlier player is allowed ample time to
> catch up on the chess knowledge accumulated since his time.
Which is to say, a nonsense comparison. Its not just a matter of time
after all, its ability! Its also psychology. These players would
likely not do well in modern Euro tournaments with 8-rounds of all
play all chess. Remember that the most 'romantic' player of all,
Capablanca, said of Alekhine's study of the game, 'if that's chess you
can keep it.'
Elo's basis of evaluation is therefore NOT based on the level of chess
attained by historical players, but on the speculation that they could
acquire modern chess knowledge. Doesn't the Capablanca anecdote punch
this idea in the nose?
I should like to see Elo's method applied, perhaps using Fritz as
assessor, to evaluate the historical level of play based on today's
scale.
> Citing
> page 81 again, he says "It must be assumed, in comparing performances
> of different eras, that the performers have access to the same
> collateral art."
Yes - I understand that that was his intention. But his intention does
NOT measure them on the same scale, which is my intention.
Of course, computer chess rating was not available to Elo - and
therefore such studies as are now being developed in MAMS, and such
things as Nunn's report, allow for evaluation on the same scale as our
own without anyone having to assume anything, and besides, is a
quantitative measure, not a vague abstraction such as 'huge' &c.
> > > A few examples (note: these
> > > are all 5-year peak ratings, or for players who played relatively
> > > little, the rating is based on the period of active play):
>
> > > =A0 Morphy: 2690
> > > =A0 Anderssen: 2600
> > > =A0 Paulsen, Louis: 2550
> > > =A0 Harrwitz:2520
> > > =A0 Kolisch: 2570
> > > =A0 Staunton: 2520
> > > =A0 Barnes: 2420
> > > =A0 Bird: 2440
> > > =A0 Riviere: 2450
> > > =A0 Boden: 2470
> > > =A0 Golmayo, Celso: 2380
> > > =A0 von der Lasa: 2600
> > > =A0 Steinitz: 2650
> > > =A0 Falkbeer: 2410
> > > =A0 Schulten: 2335
>
> > > =A0 With these and the other Morphy contemporaries Elo tracked, we ha=
ve
> > > a pool of players all alive at the same time, each of whom played
> > > several, perhaps many of the others. Morphy played at least 9 of the
> > > above named.
>
> > But this is simply an insufficient base to make such assertions. If
> > the most contact is 9, what is the least? And 15 people do not
> > represent sufficient 'x' factor for any rating pool.
>
> =A0 Phil, as I very clearly stated, I presented only a very partial
> list, among whom Morphy happened to have played nine. In preparing the
> ratings he published for or Morphy and his contemporaries, Elo had a
> much bigger pool.
'Much bigger' is not much more descriptive. But we have already
discovered in this conversation that there are 2 ideas about
historical ratings:
1) Elo did NOT measure actual performance of these players against
contemporary ratings, but assumed an increment in them given access to
modern chess materials. As a method this is OK but perhaps he should
not have called them Elo ratings, since in fact Elo is speculating
about their performances. It is unclear why he chose to do that rather
than report their actual rating on today's scale.
2) Measurement against today's scale has not taken place - but might
take place! And that is the intent here.
> > > =A0 Thus we can be reasonably confident about their relative standing=
s.
And this thread is necessary, otherwise there is absolutely no reason
to be confident of their relative standing to today's players.
But that 'little detail' gets glossed over in discussing Morphy the
2690 player, AS IF we were actually measuring him on today's scale.
Phil Innes
> > About
>
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 21:13:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 7, 1:25=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> (1) Collect the set of games Morphy played against top opponents under
> serious conditions.
>
> (2) Enlist the Rybka's developer to tweak the style parameters and
> source code so that the engine, when playing Morphy's side in these
> games, in some satisfactorily high percentage of the time, makes the
> move Morphy made or considers Morphy's move a reasonable alternative.
>
> (3) Let this Morphy simulacrum play a variety of rated competitors. =A0
The idea of your simulated PM playing a /variety/
of opponents is good, but the whole approach is
wrong-headed.
No computer today can accurately simulate the
play of a particular player, because no computer
is programmed to /think like a human/. I cannot
tell you how many times I have /deliberately/
played bad moves, or deliberately passed over
a possibility to salvage a draw in a lost position,
for reasons no computer could ever hope to
fathom, no matter how hard it tried or how
strongly it desired to do so. Indeed, any such
attempt to understand me would only lead to
the computer's disappointment-- perhaps even
thoughts of boot sector erasure.
Maybe a better approach would be to just
ignore style altogether, and use Rybka just to
objectively figure out how /strong/ Mr. Morphy
was at chess. Then, using the exact same
scale, assess the actual play of modern
players in the same class-- grandmasters.
In other words, toss out everything except
their actual chess games. The catch is that
the farther you go back in time, the weaker a
player from a given era will appear, simply due
to the inexorable advances in chess theory.
Because of this, most writers have suggested
that it would be fairer to make allowances; not
to unfairly penalize folks for being born in an
earlier era.
Anyone who has seriously studied the games
of the greats will be aware of the fact that a
few of them were the Rybkas of their days-- no
shield is big enough to hide behind; no opening
so safe it cannot be cracked open like an egg.
These IMs that Dr. IMnes wants to throw at
PM remind me of the ones chewed up by the
Rybka program in odds matches. Yes, they
have some openings theory and some idea of
proper strategy, but chess is mainly tactics.
(Not to mention the fact that Dr. IMnes /only
imagines himself/ to be nearly-an-IM.)
One more thing: in chess, many, if not most
players, are easily intimidated.
I remember seeing a game in which Larry
Evans -- a very strong player in his own right
-- played like a timid girl against Sammy
Reshevsky, pretty much letting the old man
walk all over him at will. Now, how do you
suppose these IMs of Dr. IMnes would feel
sitting down to play Paul Morphy for the first
time? Yup: intimidated; scared.
Grandmasters are a different story. Many
of them are so darn arrogant that they might
make "demands" of money or movie-rights,
whatever. Far from being intimidated into
playing poorly, these guys are more likely to
go into the match feeling vastly superior, as
is their habit. This over-confidence could
lead to unexpectedly poor results, at least
in the first game or two.
USCF Expert Dr. IMnes is so badly out-
classed by PM that he must take extreme
measures to even imagine himself as a
PM opponent. First, he pretends to be a
2450-rated nearly-an-IM who is now a tad
rusty. Next, he tries to dumb-down PM by
asking how he might do if he were forced
to play without any knowledge of modern
theory. Third, he questions the one thing
which makes a mockery of this sort of
mis-match-- the ratings system itself. It
may seem to be a lot of work for a mere
imaginary dream match, but for the good
doctor, it's well worth it in order to stay in
his state of denial.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 09:47:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> (3) Let this Morphy simulacrum play a variety of rated competitors. �
> The idea of your simulated PM playing a /variety/
>of opponents is good, but the whole approach is
>wrong-headed.
> No computer today can accurately simulate the
>play of a particular player, because no computer
>is programmed to /think like a human/.
"Thinking like a human" is neither the point nor the goal. Coming up
with the same move or at least a very similar set of candidate moves
in any given position from the set of Morphy's serious games is the
goal. The mechanisms by which these moves are determined may be
completely different.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 16:31:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
A quick remark on the question of Morphy playing at fast speeds. It is
a misunderstanding to say that players of the past were slower, since
they did not use clocks; indeed, clocks seemed unnecessary for most
play because most players used much less time than what is standard in
current tournaments. There were some notable exceptions, but these
were always noted at the time.
As for Morphy, besides the comments of other players, simple
calculations based on such things as the number of offhand games
played agains Anderssen in a short amount of time, and his pounding of
such famously fast players as Delannoy while giving heavy odds, we
have enough records of the times he used in games to be confident that
he could cope with fast play. I checked only one soure (The Albion,
since it was first alphabetically in my list of notes), and found the
following
When Morphy played 4 games blindfold in New Orleans as reported Mar
27, 1858, he used 3 hours to win all 4 games; the first 3 were
finished in 2:30. Incidentally, this is very different from certain of
Paulsen's large blindfold exhibits; these were often played over
multiple days which strikes me as being easier than in one sitting,
though that did not seem to detract from the amazement shown by
observers at the time.
On May 28, 1859, a report on a match at N odds between Perrin and
Morphy notes that Morphy won 3 games in 2 hours; this is given in the
context that complaints about Perrin monopolizing Morphy's time seemed
to disconcert Perrin.
There was one famously long game; game 9 against Loewenthal took 19.5
hours; I think from the times given for matches by both players, odds
are that the large majority of the time was taken by Loewenthal.
Although Paulsen was known as taking a ridiculously long time in his
games against Morphy, the game I came across from this small subset of
my notes with a time attached has Morphy winning a 28 move game in 2
hrs 55 minutes total; hardly seems excessive by today's standards.
It is impossible to prove that Morphy would be good at speed chess,
but there seems to be absolutely no reason to believe that he would
have a problem with it. For what it's worth, when Labourdonnais was
challenged by a ridiculously fast player to play lightning chess, he
had no problem annihilating his faster opponent when forced to match
his speed.
Morphy also seemed able to adjust his tactics to play different types
of opponents; you shouldn't take my word on it, but Steinitz discussed
this rather extensively in his comments on Morphy. For what it's
worth, I think it is fair to discuss whether Morphy would be beaten by
a current "average" grandmaster. I know, having analyzed both my own
games and Morphy's games for errors with a computer, that he would
utterly annihilate me (high class A/low expert over the games
analyzed). The best I could hope for is that he would take it easy in
his first game and let me win or draw. The one match opponent of
Morphy I think I match up positively against
is Mongredien, but after the first game there was really no contest.
Jerry Spinrad
On Dec 7, 12:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I offer this conversation its own title, since its interesting, and
> > besides its one that is likely to go long.
>
> > > =A0 =A0There really is no point in discussing the
> > > match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
> > > like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. =A0 More
> > > interesting is the idea of a match between a
> > > modern grandmaster and PM; between more
> > > theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
> > > I expect the modern grandmaster would try
> > > to close the position, out of fear of PM's
> > > tactical wizardry in open positions.
>
> > What I really want to do is entice readers to consider how they know
> > what they know -
>
> =A0 Um, Phil =97 this is a chess newsgroup, not a faculty of eminent
> philosophers. We here barely know much at all, let alone *_how_* we
> know it. And for some here the gap between what the poster believes to
> know or claims to know, and what he actually does know, is quite vast.
> So asking this group "How do we know what we know?" is a bit like
> asking camels for swimming lessons.
>
>
>
>
>
> > so in this series of exchanges with Greg Kennedy I
> > have sponsored this question by asking
>
> > 1) what there is more than asserted belief
> > 2) the theoretical challange of proposing that Morphy would not deal
> > well with hyper-modern play
> > 3) given 5 or 10 minute games against a prepared opponent, any strong
> > player can lose
>
> > > =A0 In a way, we have "forced" poor Dr. IMnes
> > > back into his delusional nearly-an-IM state,
> > > by matching him against his vast superior.
> > > That was both cruel and pointless.
>
> > All you have done is some sort or Rant about a "Great". Its common to
> > do so! Strong living players often say they regret their fans and
> > enthusiasts.
>
> > The point of the issue is to properly assess Morphy. TK has proposed
> > he was 'historically' 2650+ Elo by regressive analysis. I am not quite
> > sure what this means in fact,
>
> =A0 Far too difficult to explain here how Dr. Elo carried out his
> analysis, and I am no mathematician. I recommend you read his book
> "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" if you want the
> details.
>
> > since is he proposing that if Morphy
> > showed up today he would play 2650 chess?
>
> =A0 No, one is on iffy ground trying to compare players of different
> eras. I would be very hesitant to say what FIDE rating the Morphy of,
> say, 1860 would have were he magically transported to the 21st century
> and played in modern tournaments.
> =A0 One is on firmer ground comparing the rating Elo gave Morphy to the
> ratings he gave Morphy's contemporaries. A few examples (note: these
> are all 5-year peak ratings, or for players who played relatively
> little, the rating is based on the period of active play):
>
> =A0 Morphy: 2690
> =A0 Anderssen: 2600
> =A0 Paulsen, Louis: 2550
> =A0 Harrwitz:2520
> =A0 Kolisch: 2570
> =A0 Staunton: 2520
> =A0 Barnes: 2420
> =A0 Bird: 2440
> =A0 Riviere: 2450
> =A0 Boden: 2470
> =A0 Golmayo, Celso: 2380
> =A0 von der Lasa: 2600
> =A0 Steinitz: 2650
> =A0 Falkbeer: 2410
> =A0 Schulten: 2335
>
> =A0 With these and the other Morphy contemporaries Elo tracked, we have
> a pool of players all alive at the same time, each of whom played
> several, perhaps many of the others. Morphy played at least 9 of the
> above named.
> =A0 Thus we can be reasonably confident about their relative standings.
> The 90-point differential between Morphy and Anderssen indicates that
> in a match of reasonable length, with both men in their primes, Morphy
> would probably win by a score of about 62% to 38%. This is fairly
> close to their actual match, which Morphy won +7 -2 =3D2, a 73% score.
> =A0 Morphy did not play Staunton, but Elo's calculations indicate that
> if they had, Morphy would have scored about 73%, though I suspect his
> margin would have been even greater, as Staunton was past his prime in
> when Morphy came to England in 1858.
>
> > I see offramp [I think] also
> > mentioned that the Elo system itself may have changed a gear or two
> > [that is also Russian opinion] and suffered two types of inflation.
> > One of those was a sort of rigging - but the other is more honest, and
> > is simply the result of more GMs pushing the upper limit.
>
> > The problem is ever with the pre-Elo estimate. I even think that
> > technically there may not have been sufficient "X" in the range of
> > players Morphy encountered, neither enough games played to avoid wide
> > statistical variance.
>
> =A0 A fair point. The sample of serious Morphy games is small. Still,
> there is no doubt that he was head-and-shoulders above his
> contemporaries. Being #1 in the world has to count for something, even
> if it was a world in which chess competition was not at all
> systematically organized.
>
>
>
>
>
> > That is the first contention. Just to keep everyone warmed up, what if
> > Morphy was no better than current IM level? Say 2525. That might place
> > him 3000th in the world.
>
> > Secondly, the contention is that Morphy would play well at fast speeds
> > - but this point by Greg Kennedy seems to have been completely
> > abandoned, at least to the extent that no supporting information is
> > supplied to justify the assertion.
>
> > BUT! Here is the big thing. I have been arguing substantially against
> > myself, and while its interesting to not really find an objective
> > refutation that "Morphy couldn't cope with hypermoderns" - I
> > personally do not actually believe that.
>
> > The most interesting thing to emerge from MAMS studies recently,
> > thanks to Dr. Alberts, is that the way to play to win [at least with
> > the White bits] against any level of player, and especially against
> > super-computers and top programs is to REVERT to Romantic-Era play.
>
> =A0 This is an unusual claim. The conventional wisdom is that computers
> are best in open positions that give free rein to tactics, which is
> the essence of the romantic style. Conversely, they're supposed to
> have more trouble in closed positions where stratiegic ideas are
> paramount. Can you supply a link to Dr. Alberts' study?
>
> > I am more than somewhat dissapointed that after going to all the
> > trouble to lead out this conversation, almost all responses [save Mike
> > Murray's] have been personality guesses combined with negative
> > projections. Hardly no science at all!
>
> > So... What's true? (1) Would Morphy even be a GM today if he played
> > from his historic understanding.
>
> =A0 Not sure what you mean by "from his historic understanding." You
> mean take the Morphy of 1860, transport him to 2008, and toss him
> immediately into a GM tournament? Seems a tad unfair. Every one of his
> opponents would know a lot about him, but he'd know nothing of them.
>
> > (2) Is there any particualr reason to
> > think he would be any good at Blitz -
>
> =A0 Well, yes. All accounts indicate that Morphy was a very quick
> player. He took relatively little time for his moves, even though
> there was no time limit in his day.
>
> =A0 But how he'd do against today's GMs, with or without the opportunity
> to study their games, modern opening theory, middle-game strategy,
> endgame technique etc., can only be speculated. I will venture the
> opinion that Morphy had great talent for chess, and that talent would
> enable him to excel today just as it did 150 years ago, assuming he
> wanted to play serious chess once he got here. Whether he'd be
> anywhere near #1 I don't care to guess, but I suspect he could whup
> ass on just about any rcg regular.
>
>
>
> > or even more provocatively, that
> > a master player wouldn't stand a chance? (3) But following Alberts
> > [see his latest at Chessville - which incidentally illustrates very
> > provocatively that certain positions in the Sicilian are lost at move
> > 10 by Black !!] is Morphyesque or Romantic Era play the way to beat
> > the electronic beasts?
>
> > Alberts has been looking at the deliberate exchange of material for
> > other factors, but certainly not 'romantically', but very precicely
> > calculated risks indeed.
>
> > He uses "Fritz" itself to measure the risks, and recommends to the
> > beast-beater specific levels of white and black risk.
>
> > If anyone wants to discuss this subject, please go ahead here - or
> > alternately, I can make you an introduction to Dr. A.
>
> > Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 20:21:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 9, 7:18=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Shall we let it stand then, as substantially or empirically
> uncontested that grandmaster, mathematician Dr. Nunn resolved Morphy's
> Elo as about 2300? [or less] =A0I hear only a vast sucking silence...
>
> Since the issue is substantially or empirically uncontested, beyond
> 'beliefs' and such =A0remonstrations that the GM and PhD mathematician
...who famously botched a simple translation
from descriptive notation into algebraic...
> progressed the state of our understanding by systemic evaluation via
> Fritz 5.
It is always a good idea to make certain the
chess engine you use is /stronger/ than the
players being examined. Here, we have
Fritz-5, which is likely better than most
grandmasters at short-range tactics, but who
is to say what strange results might appear
with regard to strategy or positional sacrifice?
> I take my case as won, pending further substantive or empirical
> comment to other possibility of any means to resolve same.
Well, this is the same imbecile who took
a 2450 rating, and who also purloined a
nearly-an-IM title from the FIDE, but was
caught red-handed by a relative patzer, who
knows nothing of chess except for what he
sees in dusty old books; a historian, of all
things. (I'm embarassed for him.)
I don't think it is a good idea to attempt a
substantive discussion of Dr. Nunn's work
with a complete idiot as his spokesperson;
if, on the other hand, the actual article can
be linked to so that rational persons can
read it, sans Innes' misinterpretations, that
is a different matter.
Just remember that in many cases these
"doctors", mathematicians and economists
have been dead wrong in the past; in fact, I
used to read about how smart these guys
were -- the Nobel laureates; that is, until
their mathematical models stopped working
and the stock market crashed and the
banks began to fail and the Havard and
Yale trust funds lost, what was it, 30% in
the course of just four months.
Lately I've been reading about how stupid
these guys all were, to think they could
model everything and then use leverage to
inexorably beef up profits.
Until such time as the overall *strength*
of chess players can be determined by
unbiased computers, without any human
intervention or "interpretation" by self-
appointed "experts", I think we are stuck
with our impressions, our crosstables
and our retro-ratings.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 16:30:23
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 9, 7:18=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Shall we let it stand then, as substantially or empirically
> uncontested that grandmaster, mathematician Dr. Nunn resolved Morphy's
> Elo as about 2300? [or less]
No.
>=A0I hear only a vast sucking silence...
Well, you've never been a good listener, Phil, although you do suck.
> Since the issue is substantially or empirically uncontested,
Phil airily dismisses or ignores dissenting viewpoints, and then
declares the issue "uncontested." As I said earlier, the acid is
kicking in.
> beyond
> 'beliefs' and such =A0remonstrations that the GM and PhD mathematician
> progressed the state of our understanding by systemic evaluation via
> Fritz 5.
>
> I take my case as won,
Yes, just like I was recently elected King.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 16:18:41
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
Shall we let it stand then, as substantially or empirically
uncontested that grandmaster, mathematician Dr. Nunn resolved Morphy's
Elo as about 2300? [or less] I hear only a vast sucking silence...
Since the issue is substantially or empirically uncontested, beyond
'beliefs' and such remonstrations that the GM and PhD mathematician
progressed the state of our understanding by systemic evaluation via
Fritz 5.
I take my case as won, pending further substantive or empirical
comment to other possibility of any means to resolve same.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 15:59:12
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
other series of belief statements by Kelp-bot who avoids the actual
game [!] mentioned, as does idiot never even a b player Brennan. That
is the level of commenary here from buffoons who demonstrate no chess
insight themselves in half a dozen years! They proudly diss master
level chess, in their opinion.
Belief or substantive analysis? You be the judge. Is this really a
Morphy-cult, like a Jesus-cult? What is anyone's experience in
intelligent conversation about either?
The joke here is that Brennan is not honest enough to say he
challenged me to produce the game v Borhholz, and even after I did, he
still doesn't 'believe' anything.
This is typical of those who 'doubt' things, and even after being
appraised of what they ask, still doubt. You would think something
depended on answers to their 'questions' on any subject - but they do
not.
They are net trash.
Doesn't matter what the subject, the 'prove to me' garbage is repeated
endlessly, except nothing actually happens upon such a proof - usually
the basis of the proof is contested, since it was not originally
proposed, and again one must propose standards for things which then
go unremarked.
As I say, nothing depends on a proof to such net-trash. They ask
always, since that seems reasonable, but they neglect their own
orientation to any truth.
Common as muck. Any topic; similar shit.
I am not much interested in the chessic beliefs of patzers - I only
note that their 'beliefs' suppress all real discussion of chess here,
as do the political writers who also believe or not believe. Such
beliefs, seems to me to be nothing other than what you want to look
at.
These people have driven all real chess commentators from chess.misc
by their 'attentions' to them.
There is an impolite term for such people. The polite expression is
'wankers'. And really, these are people scarcely ever professing their
love of the game. Maybe they never managed to say so in 5 years of
posting, yet such people are so passionate they will call you names.
No wonder decent folk rarely write here. You known who you are, what
you do, and what you have done to this newsgroup.
Go ahead, cheer for yourselves, you motherfuckers.
Phil Innes
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 15:21:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 9, 9:58 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Incidentally, anyone ever see a master game of this length when
> > neither Kings move?
> Perhaps one day two masters will play one. P Innes isn't likely to be
> one of them
At the amateur level, as in this game, such
things are not exactly rare.
--
But in /master level/ play, the tendency is
toward titanic batlles between book monkeys;
few openings have neither side castling as a
main line, except where the Queens are
exchanged via a ...Qxd1+ or Qxd8+, which
leaves at least one King in the center, and
possibly, both.
Note how the good doctor IMnes comments
in the game notes that he was *afraid* to go
toe-to-toe in a book theory contest with his
senescent opponent. This is precisely the
opposite of his more recent claims, in which
Mr. 2450 IMnes has told us that Paul Morphy
would be helpless due to PI's immense rote
knowledge of theory. Well, if you want to
know what a man really believes, look not at
what he /says/, but at what he /does/.
I was amused by the comment in the game
notes about how PI's opponent was, in his
youth, in the habit of beating grandmasters;
technicalities regarding "what exactly is a
grandmaster" aside, does this remind any-
one else of Paul Morphy-- was he not also
in the habit of besting his elders?
In my view, Dr. IMnes is not merely an
Expert who imagines himself to be two
classes hoigher; he is also very likely a
book monkey, who would be as helpless
as a child against a Paul Morphy, once in
terra incognita. I have but one reservation
here, and that is that poor PM would likely
make a mediocre endgame player, simply
because the majority of his opponents
never made it quite that far... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:58:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 9, 9:38=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:09=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 12:43=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:41:56 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> =A0 Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing=
to
> > > >> players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746.
> > > >... But how come Kingston
> > > >doesn't put up 2250 players I've beaten? Like, I beat the guy who be=
at
> > > >Frank Marshall, etc., at full time control too.
>
> > > Because it isn't referenced on the USCF website. =A0Where it is
> > > referenced? =A0I have a feeling Taylor will acknowledge the result if
> > > you show a working =A0link, or a periodical reference, or a tournamen=
t
> > > name/date/time, etc.
>
> > P Innes has mentioned Bob Bornholz a number of times in a pathetic
> > attempt to inflate his playing ability and justify his self-described
> > '2450' rating. The former Pittsburgh Chess Club member did beat
> > Marshall in a team match game back in the 1920s, and also took the
> > scalp of a very young Kashdan. This was six decades before Bornholz
> > sat down before P Innes.
>
> > Here is the rating history of "nearly IM" Phil Innes, taken from the
> > USCF MSA:
>
> > There are a total of 9 Rating Supplement entries for this player since
> > Jan. 1, 1990.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Source =A0Regular
> > Rating =A0Quick
> > Rating
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1995-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2044 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1995-06 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2044 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1995-02 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2099 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1994-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A02005 (P15=
)
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1993-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1993-06 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1993-02 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1992-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2096 (P16) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1992-06 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2096 (P16) =A0 =A0 =A0---
>
> > So, at best, he's a USCF Expert. Nothing to indicate Phil is "nearly
> > an IM".
>
> > Here is Philsy's one published game:
>
> > Innes : Bornholz
> > Amherst, Massacussetts
> > Date: 7/16/89
>
> > 1. b2-b4
> > I am playing a man who had a nasty habit of beating
> > grandmasters in his youth including Frank Marshall.
> > I thought I'd avoid the Ruy, the Marshall attack, and
> > practically everything else.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e7-e5
> > =A0 2. c1-b2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d7-d6
> > =A0 3. c2-c4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0b8-c6
> > unusual, the other Knight is usually developed first.
> > =A0 4. b4-b5
> > this pawn advance is called "the spike"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0c6-e7
> > going to the K side to assault my King.
> > =A0 5. e2-e3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e7-g6
> > =A0 6. b1-c3 =A0 f7-f5
> > =A0 7. d1-b3
> > the idea is to sit on the light squared diagonal
> > and also observe the Q side.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0g8-f6
> > =A0 8. f1-e2
> > Sokolski recommends this as a better square than d3.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 f8-e7
> > =A0 9. g1-f3
> > the game would take a different course if the pawn advanced
> > immediately.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0c8-e6
> > =A010. d2-d4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e5-e4
> > =A011. f3-g5
> > to "ask the question" to black's light squared bishop, the alternative
> > is Nd2.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e6-g8
> > played immediately - I was wondering if Bob had been here before -
> > remarkably
> > this is still "book"
> > =A012. a2-a4
> > wrong timing, but thinking about a4-a5, and a breakthrough.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0f6-d7
> > =A013. g5-h3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a7-a5
> > now what? - we have a stand-off
> > the black light square bishop will return to the center
> > and black will castle and push the f pawn. I find a wild plan to
> > liquidate
> > black's center pawns. I discounted castling - no time, and this is the
> > only
> > game I can remember of 30 moves or more that neither side moved their
> > kings!
> > =A014. g2-g4
> > radical.. If black does not take the pawn then there are remarkable
> > complications.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 f5xg4
> > =A015. e2xg4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d7-f6
> > =A016. g4-f5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0g6-h4
> > =A017. f5xe4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0f6xe4
> > winning a pawn but releasing the pressure - black now has K side
> > attacking
> > chances, the two bishops,
> > =A018. c3xe4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d6-d5
> > =A019. e4-d2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d5xc4
> > =A020. b3-c2
> > avoiding some tactical shots
> > =A0 =A0 =A0g8-e6
> > =A021. h3-f4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e6-g4
> > =A022. c2xc4
> > the black center pawns have gone, and dark square tactical chances
> > increase.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 d8-d7
> > =A023. h1-g1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e7-f6
> > =A024. f4-d5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0f6-d8
> > =A025. e3-e4
> > why not? having attacked on the Q side, the K side, now the center.
> > The whole
> > game is insane -black still has lots of tactical chances
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 c7-c6
> > but I think this is a mistake - he needs to find the combinations
> > which give
> > his bishops =A0bite
> > =A026. d5-e3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0g4-h5
> > apart from the white king having no luft and the easy incursion of the
> > black
> > Queen I have no problems
> > =A027. b5xc6 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0b7xc6
> > =A028. d4-d5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a8-c8
> > not best - but white now owns the center and can strike anywhere
> > =A029. g1xg7
> > overlooked, this seals it up
> > =A0 =A0 =A0d7-h3
> > =A030. g7-g3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0h3xh2
> > I did calculate this, honestly
> > =A031. b2xh8 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0h2-h1+
> > =A032. e3-f1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0time.
>
> > Again, nothing "IM" like here.
>
> Thank you for publishing the game. You are also not even a b player,
> right? Your opinion of even expert chess is, in your own words,
> nothing.
>
> But now Taylor will have to go back to 1989 or something and check my
> rating. That'll keep him warm. Then you can both have a lovely bitch
> about it together. Anyone competent care to analyse the game?
>
> I took an oath not to paly daft openings any more - but facing Bob who
> had a life-times database in him, I thought / hoped this would be
> moderately obscure. But actually he knew what to do, at least to move
> 11 according to Sokolski himself.
>
> Incidentally, anyone ever see a master game of this length when
> neither Kings move?
>
> Phil Innes
Perhaps one day two masters will play one. P Innes isn't likely to be
one of them.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:38:42
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 9, 9:09=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 8, 12:43=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:41:56 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >> =A0 Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing t=
o
> > >> players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746.
> > >... But how come Kingston
> > >doesn't put up 2250 players I've beaten? Like, I beat the guy who beat
> > >Frank Marshall, etc., at full time control too.
>
> > Because it isn't referenced on the USCF website. =A0Where it is
> > referenced? =A0I have a feeling Taylor will acknowledge the result if
> > you show a working =A0link, or a periodical reference, or a tournament
> > name/date/time, etc.
>
> P Innes has mentioned Bob Bornholz a number of times in a pathetic
> attempt to inflate his playing ability and justify his self-described
> '2450' rating. The former Pittsburgh Chess Club member did beat
> Marshall in a team match game back in the 1920s, and also took the
> scalp of a very young Kashdan. This was six decades before Bornholz
> sat down before P Innes.
>
> Here is the rating history of "nearly IM" Phil Innes, taken from the
> USCF MSA:
>
> There are a total of 9 Rating Supplement entries for this player since
> Jan. 1, 1990.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Source =A0Regular
> Rating =A0Quick
> Rating
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1995-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2044 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1995-06 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2044 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1995-02 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2099 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1994-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A02005 (P15)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1993-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1993-06 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1993-02 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2114 (P19) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1992-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2096 (P16) =A0 =A0 =A0---
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1992-06 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2096 (P16) =A0 =A0 =A0---
>
> So, at best, he's a USCF Expert. Nothing to indicate Phil is "nearly
> an IM".
>
> Here is Philsy's one published game:
>
> Innes : Bornholz
> Amherst, Massacussetts
> Date: 7/16/89
>
> 1. b2-b4
> I am playing a man who had a nasty habit of beating
> grandmasters in his youth including Frank Marshall.
> I thought I'd avoid the Ruy, the Marshall attack, and
> practically everything else.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e7-e5
> =A0 2. c1-b2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d7-d6
> =A0 3. c2-c4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0b8-c6
> unusual, the other Knight is usually developed first.
> =A0 4. b4-b5
> this pawn advance is called "the spike"
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0c6-e7
> going to the K side to assault my King.
> =A0 5. e2-e3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e7-g6
> =A0 6. b1-c3 =A0 f7-f5
> =A0 7. d1-b3
> the idea is to sit on the light squared diagonal
> and also observe the Q side.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0g8-f6
> =A0 8. f1-e2
> Sokolski recommends this as a better square than d3.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 f8-e7
> =A0 9. g1-f3
> the game would take a different course if the pawn advanced
> immediately.
> =A0 =A0 =A0c8-e6
> =A010. d2-d4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e5-e4
> =A011. f3-g5
> to "ask the question" to black's light squared bishop, the alternative
> is Nd2.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e6-g8
> played immediately - I was wondering if Bob had been here before -
> remarkably
> this is still "book"
> =A012. a2-a4
> wrong timing, but thinking about a4-a5, and a breakthrough.
> =A0 =A0 =A0f6-d7
> =A013. g5-h3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a7-a5
> now what? - we have a stand-off
> the black light square bishop will return to the center
> and black will castle and push the f pawn. I find a wild plan to
> liquidate
> black's center pawns. I discounted castling - no time, and this is the
> only
> game I can remember of 30 moves or more that neither side moved their
> kings!
> =A014. g2-g4
> radical.. If black does not take the pawn then there are remarkable
> complications.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 f5xg4
> =A015. e2xg4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d7-f6
> =A016. g4-f5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0g6-h4
> =A017. f5xe4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0f6xe4
> winning a pawn but releasing the pressure - black now has K side
> attacking
> chances, the two bishops,
> =A018. c3xe4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d6-d5
> =A019. e4-d2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0d5xc4
> =A020. b3-c2
> avoiding some tactical shots
> =A0 =A0 =A0g8-e6
> =A021. h3-f4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e6-g4
> =A022. c2xc4
> the black center pawns have gone, and dark square tactical chances
> increase.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 d8-d7
> =A023. h1-g1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0e7-f6
> =A024. f4-d5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0f6-d8
> =A025. e3-e4
> why not? having attacked on the Q side, the K side, now the center.
> The whole
> game is insane -black still has lots of tactical chances
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 c7-c6
> but I think this is a mistake - he needs to find the combinations
> which give
> his bishops =A0bite
> =A026. d5-e3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0g4-h5
> apart from the white king having no luft and the easy incursion of the
> black
> Queen I have no problems
> =A027. b5xc6 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0b7xc6
> =A028. d4-d5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a8-c8
> not best - but white now owns the center and can strike anywhere
> =A029. g1xg7
> overlooked, this seals it up
> =A0 =A0 =A0d7-h3
> =A030. g7-g3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0h3xh2
> I did calculate this, honestly
> =A031. b2xh8 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0h2-h1+
> =A032. e3-f1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0time.
>
> Again, nothing "IM" like here.
Thank you for publishing the game. You are also not even a b player,
right? Your opinion of even expert chess is, in your own words,
nothing.
But now Taylor will have to go back to 1989 or something and check my
rating. That'll keep him warm. Then you can both have a lovely bitch
about it together. Anyone competent care to analyse the game?
I took an oath not to paly daft openings any more - but facing Bob who
had a life-times database in him, I thought / hoped this would be
moderately obscure. But actually he knew what to do, at least to move
11 according to Sokolski himself.
Incidentally, anyone ever see a master game of this length when
neither Kings move?
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 06:09:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 8, 12:43=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:41:56 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> =A0 Checking Innes' history at the USCF website, we see him losing to
> >> players with such ratings as 1890, 1868, 1863, 1766 and 1746.
> >... But how come Kingston
> >doesn't put up 2250 players I've beaten? Like, I beat the guy who beat
> >Frank Marshall, etc., at full time control too.
>
> Because it isn't referenced on the USCF website. =A0Where it is
> referenced? =A0I have a feeling Taylor will acknowledge the result if
> you show a working =A0link, or a periodical reference, or a tournament
> name/date/time, etc.
P Innes has mentioned Bob Bornholz a number of times in a pathetic
attempt to inflate his playing ability and justify his self-described
'2450' rating. The former Pittsburgh Chess Club member did beat
Marshall in a team match game back in the 1920s, and also took the
scalp of a very young Kashdan. This was six decades before Bornholz
sat down before P Innes.
Here is the rating history of "nearly IM" Phil Innes, taken from the
USCF MSA:
There are a total of 9 Rating Supplement entries for this player since
Jan. 1, 1990.
Source Regular
Rating Quick
Rating
1995-12 2044 2005 (P15)
1995-06 2044 2005 (P15)
1995-02 2099 2005 (P15)
1994-12 2114 (P19) 2005 (P15)
1993-12 2114 (P19) ---
1993-06 2114 (P19) ---
1993-02 2114 (P19) ---
1992-12 2096 (P16) ---
1992-06 2096 (P16) ---
So, at best, he's a USCF Expert. Nothing to indicate Phil is "nearly
an IM".
Here is Philsy's one published game:
Innes : Bornholz
Amherst, Massacussetts
Date: 7/16/89
1. b2-b4
I am playing a man who had a nasty habit of beating
grandmasters in his youth including Frank Marshall.
I thought I'd avoid the Ruy, the Marshall attack, and
practically everything else.
e7-e5
2. c1-b2 d7-d6
3. c2-c4 b8-c6
unusual, the other Knight is usually developed first.
4. b4-b5
this pawn advance is called "the spike"
c6-e7
going to the K side to assault my King.
5. e2-e3 e7-g6
6. b1-c3 f7-f5
7. d1-b3
the idea is to sit on the light squared diagonal
and also observe the Q side.
g8-f6
8. f1-e2
Sokolski recommends this as a better square than d3.
f8-e7
9. g1-f3
the game would take a different course if the pawn advanced
immediately.
c8-e6
10. d2-d4 e5-e4
11. f3-g5
to "ask the question" to black's light squared bishop, the alternative
is Nd2.
e6-g8
played immediately - I was wondering if Bob had been here before -
remarkably
this is still "book"
12. a2-a4
wrong timing, but thinking about a4-a5, and a breakthrough.
f6-d7
13. g5-h3 a7-a5
now what? - we have a stand-off
the black light square bishop will return to the center
and black will castle and push the f pawn. I find a wild plan to
liquidate
black's center pawns. I discounted castling - no time, and this is the
only
game I can remember of 30 moves or more that neither side moved their
kings!
14. g2-g4
radical.. If black does not take the pawn then there are remarkable
complications.
f5xg4
15. e2xg4 d7-f6
16. g4-f5 g6-h4
17. f5xe4 f6xe4
winning a pawn but releasing the pressure - black now has K side
attacking
chances, the two bishops,
18. c3xe4 d6-d5
19. e4-d2 d5xc4
20. b3-c2
avoiding some tactical shots
g8-e6
21. h3-f4 e6-g4
22. c2xc4
the black center pawns have gone, and dark square tactical chances
increase.
d8-d7
23. h1-g1 e7-f6
24. f4-d5 f6-d8
25. e3-e4
why not? having attacked on the Q side, the K side, now the center.
The whole
game is insane -black still has lots of tactical chances
c7-c6
but I think this is a mistake - he needs to find the combinations
which give
his bishops bite
26. d5-e3 g4-h5
apart from the white king having no luft and the easy incursion of the
black
Queen I have no problems
27. b5xc6 b7xc6
28. d4-d5 a8-c8
not best - but white now owns the center and can strike anywhere
29. g1xg7
overlooked, this seals it up
d7-h3
30. g7-g3 h3xh2
I did calculate this, honestly
31. b2xh8 h2-h1+
32. e3-f1 time.
Again, nothing "IM" like here.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 14:06:58
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 7, 3:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 7, 10:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > I offer this conversation its own title, since its interesting, and
> > > besides its one that is likely to go long.
>
> > > > =A0 =A0There really is no point in discussing the
> > > > match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
> > > > like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. =A0 More
> > > > interesting is the idea of a match between a
> > > > modern grandmaster and PM; between more
> > > > theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
> > > > I expect the modern grandmaster would try
> > > > to close the position, out of fear of PM's
> > > > tactical wizardry in open positions.
>
> > > What I really want to do is entice readers to consider how they know
> > > what they know -
>
> > =A0 Um, Phil =97 this is a chess newsgroup, not a faculty of eminent
> > philosophers.
>
> Well me put it plainer to you then. I want to know if there is any
> reason at all for supposing anything about Morphy.
Yes, I think there is. That's why I submitted several suppositions.
> You could go on
> about dinosaurs with saddles, but is that an argument?
You could also snort Ovaltine and sing "Louie Louie" backwards. The
relevance of either possibility eludes me.
> What struck me about the assertions here is that they were
> particularly insufficient to justify very much at all. When I asked
> the basis on any opinion, I received only a reassertion of the
> original idea.
Not unusual for this some in this group.
> This is not even a contest on my part to be right or wrong. It is an
> investigation of what we could bring to decide the strength of
> Morphy.
>
> Even so, maybe you get to more pithy stuff below.
You mean you don't read a post in full before replying to it? One
usually should; it aids in gaining a full grasp of what the poster is
saying.
> While this is not a
> group of eminent [why eminent?] philosophers,
You would prefer little-known or poorly regarded philosophers? Or
perhaps imminent, i.e. those about to become philosophers? Or
immanent, i.e. ominpresent.
> neither are we a bunch
> of witless dorks. I suspect much intelligence here, even among those
> who cannot be called my friends.
>
> > =A0We here barely know much at all, let alone *_how_* we
> > know it.
>
> Which is to say the same thing. In fact, if you can't say how you know
> something, then you merely believe it, right?
>
> > And for some here the gap between what the poster believes to
> > know or claims to know, and what he actually does know, is quite vast.
> > So asking this group "How do we know what we know?" is a bit like
> > asking camels for swimming lessons.
>
> I always like your metaphors - but I do not share your opinion of
> people's intelligence who attend here.
There is definite intelligence in this group, and my remarks were
partly tongue-in-cheek and also aimed at myself. However, "knowing how
we know" involves getting into metaphysics, epistomology,
phenomenology and other such philosophical stuff, which I don't think
is this group's forte. On the whole, certain exceptions
notwithstanding, we're a pretty down-to-earth group, accepting mundane
reality at face value and relying primarily on empirical proof to
"know" something, with logic playing an important supporting role.
> Much of the time, methinks, the
> wisest of us say the least - and some might not even volunteer
> anything since it may seem to them that that would be pearls before
> swine.
>
> Just sometimes it is necessary to open a subject up and see what
> happens. Chess is not all about the Saga of Sam Sloan. In fact, chess
> seems to be nothing about that.
>
> There certainly used to be people who could address these issues here
> - and I not despise your own opinion neither!
>
> But surely, beliefs, insisted upon from character dislike, or personal
> assertions from egoism, is completely inadequate address to issues.
>
> Somehow these newsgroups have been brutalised by politics, and the
> result is a very tangible dumbing down.
>
> While we all indulge in that sort of stuff to some extent - even unto
> self defence - it is NOT representative of the wit and wisdom of even
> regular posters here.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > so in this series of exchanges with Greg Kennedy I
> > > have sponsored this question by asking
>
> > > 1) what there is more than asserted belief
> > > 2) the theoretical challange of proposing that Morphy would not deal
> > > well with hyper-modern play
> > > 3) given 5 or 10 minute games against a prepared opponent, any strong
> > > player can lose
>
> > > > =A0 In a way, we have "forced" poor Dr. IMnes
> > > > back into his delusional nearly-an-IM state,
> > > > by matching him against his vast superior.
> > > > That was both cruel and pointless.
>
> > > All you have done is some sort or Rant about a "Great". Its common to
> > > do so! Strong living players often say they regret their fans and
> > > enthusiasts.
>
> > > The point of the issue is to properly assess Morphy. TK has proposed
> > > he was 'historically' 2650+ Elo by regressive analysis. I am not quit=
e
> > > sure what this means in fact,
>
> > =A0 Far too difficult to explain here how Dr. Elo carried out his
> > analysis, and I am no mathematician.
>
> But I was doing algebra at age 8, and I /do/ understand Elo. His was a
> pioneers system. I ask you [from a month ago] to review what he
> himself said of what the politicians at Fide and USCF did to his
> mathematical ideas. I am unsure you acknowledged that he thought they
> delayed, then corrupted them.
>
> But that is his clear message, according to the Chessbase interviewer.
>
> > I recommend you read his book
> > "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" if you want the
> > details.
>
> I recommend you save your advice to others, and attend to the subject
> yourself. Here, the particular issue is the retrograde assessment of
> Morphy as expressed mathematically as an Elo rating.
>
> > > since is he proposing that if Morphy
> > > showed up today he would play 2650 chess?
>
> > =A0 No, one is on iffy ground trying to compare players of different
> > eras. I would be very hesitant to say what FIDE rating the Morphy of,
> > say, 1860 would have were he magically transported to the 21st century
> > and played in modern tournaments.
>
> Very hard! And yet by presenting an 'Elo' for Morphy in an unrated
> period, circa American Civil War, as 'historical' we gloss the point
> you just made.
>
> > =A0 One is on firmer ground comparing the rating Elo gave Morphy to the
> > ratings he gave Morphy's contemporaries.
>
> No one is not. One is still on the same speculatory grounds.
You think Elo's relative rankings of Morphy and his contemporaries
are on no firmer ground than airy speculation about what Morphy would
do now? I must strongly disagree.
> The
> question is: if the player was here now, would they have that rating
> now?
I cannot say, and I don't think Elo did either.
> Otherwise Elo himself confounds two different systems; our
> current one, and where none actually existed - and over 100 years
> ago.
No, I don't recall that Elo made any claim that his historical
ratings constituted any absolute standard of measurement. He readily
admits that a mid-19th century player would be out of his depth among
modern GMs: "If the Anderssen of 1864 were matched with a modern
master who figuratively has at his fingertips the chess analysis of
the intervening century, he would be at a huge disadvantage." (The
Rating of Chessplayers, p. 81)
On the other hand, he says "To devalue Anderssen because he 'knew no
theory' would be as ridiculous to devalue Galileo because he knew no
gravitational theory. To criticise an Anderssen combination on the
grounds of positional play would be as to criticise a Renaissance
painting on the values of the impressionists. The performance of an
individual should be evaluated by the standards of his own milieu, and
not of a later one." (ibid.)
> In terms of the player of the same epoch, it may be possible to
> numerically grade them as below - but is this the same scale as now?
> That is the question I ask.
It's pretty much the same Elo rating system, if that's what you
mean, calculated by Dr. Elo himself.
If I understand Elo correctly, he considers his historical ratings
as comparable to today's ratings only in the impossible and
hypothetical case where the earlier player is allowed ample time to
catch up on the chess knowledge accumulated since his time. Citing
page 81 again, he says "It must be assumed, in comparing performances
of different eras, that the performers have access to the same
collateral art."
>
> > A few examples (note: these
> > are all 5-year peak ratings, or for players who played relatively
> > little, the rating is based on the period of active play):
>
> > =A0 Morphy: 2690
> > =A0 Anderssen: 2600
> > =A0 Paulsen, Louis: 2550
> > =A0 Harrwitz:2520
> > =A0 Kolisch: 2570
> > =A0 Staunton: 2520
> > =A0 Barnes: 2420
> > =A0 Bird: 2440
> > =A0 Riviere: 2450
> > =A0 Boden: 2470
> > =A0 Golmayo, Celso: 2380
> > =A0 von der Lasa: 2600
> > =A0 Steinitz: 2650
> > =A0 Falkbeer: 2410
> > =A0 Schulten: 2335
>
> > =A0 With these and the other Morphy contemporaries Elo tracked, we have
> > a pool of players all alive at the same time, each of whom played
> > several, perhaps many of the others. Morphy played at least 9 of the
> > above named.
>
> But this is simply an insufficient base to make such assertions. If
> the most contact is 9, what is the least? And 15 people do not
> represent sufficient 'x' factor for any rating pool.
Phil, as I very clearly stated, I presented only a very partial
list, among whom Morphy happened to have played nine. In preparing the
ratings he published for or Morphy and his contemporaries, Elo had a
much bigger pool.
> > =A0 Thus we can be reasonably confident about their relative standings.
>
> About their /relative/ standing we can be tentative, based on peak
> ratings. We cannot use the Elo system since that has millions of
> iterations of chess players in it.
No, if you read his book, you will see that it does not require
millions of players or games before Elo ratings become statistically
significant. And if your standard is going to be millions, we cannot
possibly even speculate about Morphy, since the total of all his known
games is only a few hundred, and his serious games against top
competition only a small fraction of that.
> > The 90-point differential between Morphy and Anderssen indicates that
> > in a match of reasonable length, with both men in their primes, Morphy
> > would probably win by a score of about 62% to 38%. This is fairly
> > close to their actual match, which Morphy won +7 -2 =3D2, a 73% score.
> > =A0 Morphy did not play Staunton, but Elo's calculations indicate that
> > if they had, Morphy would have scored about 73%, though I suspect his
> > margin would have been even greater, as Staunton was past his prime in
> > when Morphy came to England in 1858.
>
> Pity Elo isn't around at the moment to explain the success of Anand
> over a recent opponent - since that seems to have nothing to do with
> predicatability of actual Elo scores.
>
> What you do not understand Taylor Kingston, though you recommend I
> study Elo's book, is that Elo's idea works for a large pool of
> players.
>
On the contrary, Phil. Just check the Percentage Expectancy Table on
page 31. You will find that Elo gives probabilities for 54 ranges of
rating difference, from 0-3 Elo points up to 736+. A few sample
entries, where D is the rating difference and W the win expectancy for
the higher-rated player:
D W
0-3 0.50
26-32 0.54
47-53: 0.57
77-83 0.61
99-106 0.64
180-188 0.74
266-278 0.83
375-391 0.91
> It in no way predicts outcome for match chess with closely matched
> opponents [les than 100 points].
Really? After the above table is presented, Elo then goes on to
compare expected vs. actual performance in various tournaments and
matches, in many of which the difference between contestants is well
below 100 points. See for example what he does with Hoogovens 1975 on
pages 35-38, where most of the players are within 100 points of each
other. Or any number of the 92 matches analyzed on pages 90-92.
> To not understand that is to not understand Elo's statistical basis
> for his system.
>
> > > I see offramp [I think] also
> > > mentioned that the Elo system itself may have changed a gear or two
> > > [that is also Russian opinion] and suffered two types of inflation.
> > > One of those was a sort of rigging - but the other is more honest, an=
d
> > > is simply the result of more GMs pushing the upper limit.
>
> > > The problem is ever with the pre-Elo estimate. I even think that
> > > technically there may not have been sufficient "X" in the range of
> > > players Morphy encountered, neither enough games played to avoid wide
> > > statistical variance.
>
> > =A0 A fair point. The sample of serious Morphy games is small. Still,
> > there is no doubt that he was head-and-shoulders above his
> > contemporaries.
>
> Let's just say he was better than those he could encounter - and not
> glamorise how much better, since we all know there is no basis for
> that - as you yourself say. Staunton for legit or other reasons,
> declined a match - so we simply have no benchmarks near Morphy to
> assert anything at all.
Only Staunton qualifies as a legitimate benchmark, among all the
people Morphy played? A very strange opinion, Phil. Especially
considering that Anderssen manhandled Staunton in 1851, and then was
manhandled by Morphy in 1858.
> Indeed, individual chemistry may have played
> out so that Morphy won the first 4 points of 6 available, then became
> nervously exhausted, while his opponent collected 4 from the next 6.
>
> Look what Fischer demonstrated! Another 'hardly Elo' comparison.
> Utterly unpredicatable.
>
> > Being #1 in the world has to count for something, even
> > if it was a world in which chess competition was not at all
> > systematically organized.
>
> The world at the time comprised London, Paris, Berlin and Budapest.
> Morphy, as you say, never played even one of the others mentioned
> above 10 games,
I never said any such thing. For example, Morphy is known to have
played Anderssen 17 times, Barnes 26 times, Loewenthal 14 times, and
Bird 11, in 1858 alone. I think your dyslexia is acting up again.
> and never a 12 game match. What we know of Morphy's
> match abilities, or his 8 strong player round-robin ones, is nothing.
Certainly we do not know as much as we would like, since lamentably
Morphy gave up the game. But just as certainly, we know more than
"nothing."
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 12:40:40
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 7, 1:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I offer this conversation its own title, since its interesting, and
> > besides its one that is likely to go long.
>
> > > =A0 =A0There really is no point in discussing the
> > > match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
> > > like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. =A0 More
> > > interesting is the idea of a match between a
> > > modern grandmaster and PM; between more
> > > theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
> > > I expect the modern grandmaster would try
> > > to close the position, out of fear of PM's
> > > tactical wizardry in open positions.
>
> > What I really want to do is entice readers to consider how they know
> > what they know -
>
> =A0 Um, Phil =97 this is a chess newsgroup, not a faculty of eminent
> philosophers.
Well me put it plainer to you then. I want to know if there is any
reason at all for supposing anything about Morphy. You could go on
about dinosaurs with saddles, but is that an argument?
What struck me about the assertions here is that they were
particularly insufficient to justify very much at all. When I asked
the basis on any opinion, I received only a reassertion of the
original idea.
This is not even a contest on my part to be right or wrong. It is an
investigation of what we could bring to decide the strength of
Morphy.
Even so, maybe you get to more pithy stuff below. While this is not a
group of eminent [why eminent?] philosophers, neither are we a bunch
of witless dorks. I suspect much intelligence here, even among those
who cannot be called my friends.
> We here barely know much at all, let alone *_how_* we
> know it.
Which is to say the same thing. In fact, if you can't say how you know
something, then you merely believe it, right?
> And for some here the gap between what the poster believes to
> know or claims to know, and what he actually does know, is quite vast.
> So asking this group "How do we know what we know?" is a bit like
> asking camels for swimming lessons.
I always like your metaphors - but I do not share your opinion of
people's intelligence who attend here. Much of the time, methinks, the
wisest of us say the least - and some might not even volunteer
anything since it may seem to them that that would be pearls before
swine.
Just sometimes it is necessary to open a subject up and see what
happens. Chess is not all about the Saga of Sam Sloan. In fact, chess
seems to be nothing about that.
There certainly used to be people who could address these issues here
- and I not despise your own opinion neither!
But surely, beliefs, insisted upon from character dislike, or personal
assertions from egoism, is completely inadequate address to issues.
Somehow these newsgroups have been brutalised by politics, and the
result is a very tangible dumbing down.
While we all indulge in that sort of stuff to some extent - even unto
self defence - it is NOT representative of the wit and wisdom of even
regular posters here.
> > so in this series of exchanges with Greg Kennedy I
> > have sponsored this question by asking
>
> > 1) what there is more than asserted belief
> > 2) the theoretical challange of proposing that Morphy would not deal
> > well with hyper-modern play
> > 3) given 5 or 10 minute games against a prepared opponent, any strong
> > player can lose
>
> > > =A0 In a way, we have "forced" poor Dr. IMnes
> > > back into his delusional nearly-an-IM state,
> > > by matching him against his vast superior.
> > > That was both cruel and pointless.
>
> > All you have done is some sort or Rant about a "Great". Its common to
> > do so! Strong living players often say they regret their fans and
> > enthusiasts.
>
> > The point of the issue is to properly assess Morphy. TK has proposed
> > he was 'historically' 2650+ Elo by regressive analysis. I am not quite
> > sure what this means in fact,
>
> =A0 Far too difficult to explain here how Dr. Elo carried out his
> analysis, and I am no mathematician.
But I was doing algebra at age 8, and I /do/ understand Elo. His was a
pioneers system. I ask you [from a month ago] to review what he
himself said of what the politicians at Fide and USCF did to his
mathematical ideas. I am unsure you acknowledged that he thought they
delayed, then corrupted them.
But that is his clear message, according to the Chessbase interviewer.
> I recommend you read his book
> "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" if you want the
> details.
I recommend you save your advice to others, and attend to the subject
yourself. Here, the particular issue is the retrograde assessment of
Morphy as expressed mathematically as an Elo rating.
> > since is he proposing that if Morphy
> > showed up today he would play 2650 chess?
>
> =A0 No, one is on iffy ground trying to compare players of different
> eras. I would be very hesitant to say what FIDE rating the Morphy of,
> say, 1860 would have were he magically transported to the 21st century
> and played in modern tournaments.
Very hard! And yet by presenting an 'Elo' for Morphy in an unrated
period, circa American Civil War, as 'historical' we gloss the point
you just made.
> =A0 One is on firmer ground comparing the rating Elo gave Morphy to the
> ratings he gave Morphy's contemporaries.
No one is not. One is still on the same speculatory grounds. The
question is: if the player was here now, would they have that rating
now? Otherwise Elo himself confounds two different systems; our
current one, and where none actually existed - and over 100 years
ago.
In terms of the player of the same epoch, it may be possible to
numerically grade them as below - but is this the same scale as now?
That is the question I ask.
> A few examples (note: these
> are all 5-year peak ratings, or for players who played relatively
> little, the rating is based on the period of active play):
>
> =A0 Morphy: 2690
> =A0 Anderssen: 2600
> =A0 Paulsen, Louis: 2550
> =A0 Harrwitz:2520
> =A0 Kolisch: 2570
> =A0 Staunton: 2520
> =A0 Barnes: 2420
> =A0 Bird: 2440
> =A0 Riviere: 2450
> =A0 Boden: 2470
> =A0 Golmayo, Celso: 2380
> =A0 von der Lasa: 2600
> =A0 Steinitz: 2650
> =A0 Falkbeer: 2410
> =A0 Schulten: 2335
>
> =A0 With these and the other Morphy contemporaries Elo tracked, we have
> a pool of players all alive at the same time, each of whom played
> several, perhaps many of the others. Morphy played at least 9 of the
> above named.
But this is simply an insufficient base to make such assertions. If
the most contact is 9, what is the least? And 15 people do not
represent sufficient 'x' factor for any rating pool.
> =A0 Thus we can be reasonably confident about their relative standings.
About their /relative/ standing we can be tentative, based on peak
ratings. We cannot use the Elo system since that has millions of
iterations of chess players in it.
> The 90-point differential between Morphy and Anderssen indicates that
> in a match of reasonable length, with both men in their primes, Morphy
> would probably win by a score of about 62% to 38%. This is fairly
> close to their actual match, which Morphy won +7 -2 =3D2, a 73% score.
> =A0 Morphy did not play Staunton, but Elo's calculations indicate that
> if they had, Morphy would have scored about 73%, though I suspect his
> margin would have been even greater, as Staunton was past his prime in
> when Morphy came to England in 1858.
Pity Elo isn't around at the moment to explain the success of Anand
over a recent opponent - since that seems to have nothing to do with
predicatability of actual Elo scores.
What you do not understand Taylor Kingston, though you recommend I
study Elo's book, is that Elo's idea works for a large pool of
players.
It in no way predicts outcome for match chess with closely matched
opponents [les than 100 points].
To not understand that is to not understand Elo's statistical basis
for his system.
> > I see offramp [I think] also
> > mentioned that the Elo system itself may have changed a gear or two
> > [that is also Russian opinion] and suffered two types of inflation.
> > One of those was a sort of rigging - but the other is more honest, and
> > is simply the result of more GMs pushing the upper limit.
>
> > The problem is ever with the pre-Elo estimate. I even think that
> > technically there may not have been sufficient "X" in the range of
> > players Morphy encountered, neither enough games played to avoid wide
> > statistical variance.
>
> =A0 A fair point. The sample of serious Morphy games is small. Still,
> there is no doubt that he was head-and-shoulders above his
> contemporaries.
Let's just say he was better than those he could encounter - and not
glamorise how much better, since we all know there is no basis for
that - as you yourself say. Staunton for legit or other reasons,
declined a match - so we simply have no benchmarks near Morphy to
assert anything at all. Indeed, individual chemistry may have played
out so that Morphy won the first 4 points of 6 available, then became
nervously exhausted, while his opponent collected 4 from the next 6.
Look what Fischer demonstrated! Another 'hardly Elo' comparison.
Utterly unpredicatable.
> Being #1 in the world has to count for something, even
> if it was a world in which chess competition was not at all
> systematically organized.
The world at the time comprised London, Paris, Berlin and Budapest.
Morphy, as you say, never played even one of the others mentioned
above 10 games, and never a 12 game match. What we know of Morphy's
match abilities, or his 8 strong player round-robin ones, is nothing.
> > That is the first contention. Just to keep everyone warmed up, what if
> > Morphy was no better than current IM level? Say 2525. That might place
> > him 3000th in the world.
>
> > Secondly, the contention is that Morphy would play well at fast speeds
> > - but this point by Greg Kennedy seems to have been completely
> > abandoned, at least to the extent that no supporting information is
> > supplied to justify the assertion.
>
> > BUT! Here is the big thing. I have been arguing substantially against
> > myself, and while its interesting to not really find an objective
> > refutation that "Morphy couldn't cope with hypermoderns" - I
> > personally do not actually believe that.
>
> > The most interesting thing to emerge from MAMS studies recently,
> > thanks to Dr. Alberts, is that the way to play to win [at least with
> > the White bits] against any level of player, and especially against
> > super-computers and top programs is to REVERT to Romantic-Era play.
>
> =A0 This is an unusual claim. The conventional wisdom is that computers
> are best in open positions that give free rein to tactics, which is
> the essence of the romantic style. Conversely, they're supposed to
> have more trouble in closed positions where stratiegic ideas are
> paramount. Can you supply a link to Dr. Alberts' study?
I have copied a bunch of very strong players my original message, plus
some real chessic thinkers, who don't write here. I said I wanted to
stimulate the subject as an on-going project.
Here is Albert's recent col at Chessville
http://www.chessville.com/Alberts/DeusExMachina.htm
And you can see his / his publisher's [Ben Pascha] site at www.howtofoolfri=
tz.com
> > I am more than somewhat dissapointed that after going to all the
> > trouble to lead out this conversation, almost all responses [save Mike
> > Murray's] have been personality guesses combined with negative
> > projections. Hardly no science at all!
>
> > So... What's true? (1) Would Morphy even be a GM today if he played
> > from his historic understanding.
>
> =A0 Not sure what you mean by "from his historic understanding." You
> mean take the Morphy of 1860, transport him to 2008, and toss him
> immediately into a GM tournament? Seems a tad unfair.
Fair? This is science. You see, if you say he is 2680 - then does that
mean against current players? If not, he is not 2680!
> Every one of his
> opponents would know a lot about him, but he'd know nothing of them.
True. That is, if he could understand them.
> > (2) Is there any particualr reason to
> > think he would be any good at Blitz -
>
> =A0 Well, yes. All accounts indicate that Morphy was a very quick
> player. He took relatively little time for his moves, even though
> there was no time limit in his day.
In other words - we have no idea if he could play a game in 10 minutes
without tragically trancing on some beautiful combination, and run out
of time? I can do that myself! :)
> =A0 But how he'd do against today's GMs, with or without the opportunity
> to study their games, modern opening theory, middle-game strategy,
> endgame technique etc., can only be speculated.
But it is not 'only speculated'. If you say 2680, then what can that
mean? It means 2680 today, or it means nothing at all.
> I will venture the
> opinion that Morphy had great talent for chess, and that talent would
> enable him to excel today just as it did 150 years ago, assuming he
> wanted to play serious chess once he got here. Whether he'd be
> anywhere near #1 I don't care to guess, but I suspect he could whup
> ass on just about any rcg regular.
Which means he is what? Better than 1600 - which is after all, average
USCF rating for adults. That seems like a rather slim basis for
'whipping ass', as you put it.
There is good stuff in here. I think mostly we are admitting we don't
know how to justify our instincts - and maybe we are saying that are
instincts are more romantic than our facts?
Phil Innes
> > or even more provocatively, that
> > a master player wouldn't stand a chance? (3) But following Alberts
> > [see his latest at Chessville - which incidentally illustrates very
> > provocatively that certain positions in the Sicilian are lost at move
> > 10 by Black !!] is Morphyesque or Romantic Era play the way to beat
> > the electronic beasts?
>
> > Alberts has been looking at the deliberate exchange of material for
> > other factors, but certainly not 'romantically', but very precicely
> > calculated risks indeed.
>
> > He uses "Fritz" itself to measure the risks, and recommends to the
> > beast-beater specific levels of white and black risk.
>
> > If anyone wants to discuss this subject, please go ahead here - or
> > alternately, I can make you an introduction to Dr. A.
>
> > Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 11:46:51
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 7, 1:25=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:57:50 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >So... What's true? (1) Would Morphy even be a GM today if he played
> >from his historic understanding.
>
> So, Phil, here's how you do it.
>
> (1) Collect the set of games Morphy played against top opponents under
> serious conditions.
>
> (2) Enlist the Rybka's developer to tweak the style parameters and
> source code so that the engine, when playing Morphy's side in these
> games, in some satisfactorily high percentage of the time, makes the
> move Morphy made or considers Morphy's move a reasonable alternative.
Ah well, I do know that bloke, Rybka's developer, and write with him.
But, what you say is a tad tricky, since the trouble with engines is
that on their own, they won't play Morphy's moves. This would be to
adjust several things in them; (a) the perception of the positional
dynamic, and (b) the subsequent evaluation of the positional dynamic.
The way all chess computer engines play is by /minimal risk/ rather
than what we discuss here, which is deliberately upping the ante, and
achieving /optimal/ risk - as indeed Morphy did.
Maybe, though, it is possible to do as you say. Last chess developer
who tried it was Chris Whittington in England about a decade ago.
> (3) Let this Morphy simulacrum play a variety of rated competitors. =A0
Well, I agree with that!
> OK, now that you have the strategy, go forth and implement.
We have an idea. Whether it is actually a pragmatic one is less sure.
All computer chess development has gone the other way for 15 years -
brute forcing material factors.
> >(2) Is there any particualr reason to
> >think he would be any good at Blitz - or even more provocatively, that
> >a master player wouldn't stand a chance?
>
> FWIW, =A0contemporaries reported Morphy normally played much faster than
> his opponents.
Well sure - they used sand-glasses often. Or no time control. The
question though is dealing with very fast play, say Blitz 5 minute, no
delay.
> =A0Of course, this isn't blitz. =A0But, it seems more
> reasonable to assume he'd be good at blitz than to assume the
> contrary.
In the same sense that any world-class player could be assumed to
perform well at fast time controls - yes that is a reasonable
supposition if Morphy were to play those of his own era - but of ours?
Good post, Mike.
Phil
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 12:56:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:46:51 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>Ah well, I do know that bloke, Rybka's developer, and write with him.
>But, what you say is a tad tricky, since the trouble with engines is
>that on their own, they won't play Morphy's moves. This would be to
>adjust several things in them; (a) the perception of the positional
>dynamic, and (b) the subsequent evaluation of the positional dynamic.
Most engines allow a fair amount of parameter tweaking in this, but
access to source code would be the ace in the hole.
Of course, the tacit assumption, which is admittedly shaky, is that
the style of a human GM is subject to this sort of algorithmic
capture.
>We have an idea. Whether it is actually a pragmatic one is less sure.
>All computer chess development has gone the other way for 15 years -
>brute forcing material factors.
It's possible the product would be commercially viable. After all,
commercial engines are able to command ratings of, what, 3200 or so ?
Well beyond the point where any but a handful of humans could perceive
further advances in strength. Getting the people already owning
Fritz11 or Rybka to pay for upgrades should become problematic.
But, being able to buy electronic simulacra of Morphy, Steinitz,
Fischer? The possibilities for new player "modules" seems virtually
limitless.
I may write the Saemisch module myself. It will always forfeit on
time relatively early.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 10:25:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:57:50 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>So... What's true? (1) Would Morphy even be a GM today if he played
>from his historic understanding.
So, Phil, here's how you do it.
(1) Collect the set of games Morphy played against top opponents under
serious conditions.
(2) Enlist the Rybka's developer to tweak the style parameters and
source code so that the engine, when playing Morphy's side in these
games, in some satisfactorily high percentage of the time, makes the
move Morphy made or considers Morphy's move a reasonable alternative.
(3) Let this Morphy simulacrum play a variety of rated competitors.
OK, now that you have the strategy, go forth and implement.
>(2) Is there any particualr reason to
>think he would be any good at Blitz - or even more provocatively, that
>a master player wouldn't stand a chance?
FWIW, contemporaries reported Morphy normally played much faster than
his opponents. Of course, this isn't blitz. But, it seems more
reasonable to assume he'd be good at blitz than to assume the
contrary.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 10:24:50
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy, real measurement thereof
|
On Dec 7, 10:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> I offer this conversation its own title, since its interesting, and
> besides its one that is likely to go long.
>
> > =A0 =A0There really is no point in discussing the
> > match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
> > like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. =A0 More
> > interesting is the idea of a match between a
> > modern grandmaster and PM; between more
> > theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
> > I expect the modern grandmaster would try
> > to close the position, out of fear of PM's
> > tactical wizardry in open positions.
>
> What I really want to do is entice readers to consider how they know
> what they know -
Um, Phil =97 this is a chess newsgroup, not a faculty of eminent
philosophers. We here barely know much at all, let alone *_how_* we
know it. And for some here the gap between what the poster believes to
know or claims to know, and what he actually does know, is quite vast.
So asking this group "How do we know what we know?" is a bit like
asking camels for swimming lessons.
> so in this series of exchanges with Greg Kennedy I
> have sponsored this question by asking
>
> 1) what there is more than asserted belief
> 2) the theoretical challange of proposing that Morphy would not deal
> well with hyper-modern play
> 3) given 5 or 10 minute games against a prepared opponent, any strong
> player can lose
>
> > =A0 In a way, we have "forced" poor Dr. IMnes
> > back into his delusional nearly-an-IM state,
> > by matching him against his vast superior.
> > That was both cruel and pointless.
>
> All you have done is some sort or Rant about a "Great". Its common to
> do so! Strong living players often say they regret their fans and
> enthusiasts.
>
> The point of the issue is to properly assess Morphy. TK has proposed
> he was 'historically' 2650+ Elo by regressive analysis. I am not quite
> sure what this means in fact,
Far too difficult to explain here how Dr. Elo carried out his
analysis, and I am no mathematician. I recommend you read his book
"The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" if you want the
details.
> since is he proposing that if Morphy
> showed up today he would play 2650 chess?
No, one is on iffy ground trying to compare players of different
eras. I would be very hesitant to say what FIDE rating the Morphy of,
say, 1860 would have were he magically transported to the 21st century
and played in modern tournaments.
One is on firmer ground comparing the rating Elo gave Morphy to the
ratings he gave Morphy's contemporaries. A few examples (note: these
are all 5-year peak ratings, or for players who played relatively
little, the rating is based on the period of active play):
Morphy: 2690
Anderssen: 2600
Paulsen, Louis: 2550
Harrwitz:2520
Kolisch: 2570
Staunton: 2520
Barnes: 2420
Bird: 2440
Riviere: 2450
Boden: 2470
Golmayo, Celso: 2380
von der Lasa: 2600
Steinitz: 2650
Falkbeer: 2410
Schulten: 2335
With these and the other Morphy contemporaries Elo tracked, we have
a pool of players all alive at the same time, each of whom played
several, perhaps many of the others. Morphy played at least 9 of the
above named.
Thus we can be reasonably confident about their relative standings.
The 90-point differential between Morphy and Anderssen indicates that
in a match of reasonable length, with both men in their primes, Morphy
would probably win by a score of about 62% to 38%. This is fairly
close to their actual match, which Morphy won +7 -2 =3D2, a 73% score.
Morphy did not play Staunton, but Elo's calculations indicate that
if they had, Morphy would have scored about 73%, though I suspect his
margin would have been even greater, as Staunton was past his prime in
when Morphy came to England in 1858.
> I see offramp [I think] also
> mentioned that the Elo system itself may have changed a gear or two
> [that is also Russian opinion] and suffered two types of inflation.
> One of those was a sort of rigging - but the other is more honest, and
> is simply the result of more GMs pushing the upper limit.
>
> The problem is ever with the pre-Elo estimate. I even think that
> technically there may not have been sufficient "X" in the range of
> players Morphy encountered, neither enough games played to avoid wide
> statistical variance.
A fair point. The sample of serious Morphy games is small. Still,
there is no doubt that he was head-and-shoulders above his
contemporaries. Being #1 in the world has to count for something, even
if it was a world in which chess competition was not at all
systematically organized.
> That is the first contention. Just to keep everyone warmed up, what if
> Morphy was no better than current IM level? Say 2525. That might place
> him 3000th in the world.
>
> Secondly, the contention is that Morphy would play well at fast speeds
> - but this point by Greg Kennedy seems to have been completely
> abandoned, at least to the extent that no supporting information is
> supplied to justify the assertion.
>
> BUT! Here is the big thing. I have been arguing substantially against
> myself, and while its interesting to not really find an objective
> refutation that "Morphy couldn't cope with hypermoderns" - I
> personally do not actually believe that.
>
> The most interesting thing to emerge from MAMS studies recently,
> thanks to Dr. Alberts, is that the way to play to win [at least with
> the White bits] against any level of player, and especially against
> super-computers and top programs is to REVERT to Romantic-Era play.
This is an unusual claim. The conventional wisdom is that computers
are best in open positions that give free rein to tactics, which is
the essence of the romantic style. Conversely, they're supposed to
have more trouble in closed positions where stratiegic ideas are
paramount. Can you supply a link to Dr. Alberts' study?
> I am more than somewhat dissapointed that after going to all the
> trouble to lead out this conversation, almost all responses [save Mike
> Murray's] have been personality guesses combined with negative
> projections. Hardly no science at all!
>
> So... What's true? (1) Would Morphy even be a GM today if he played
> from his historic understanding.
Not sure what you mean by "from his historic understanding." You
mean take the Morphy of 1860, transport him to 2008, and toss him
immediately into a GM tournament? Seems a tad unfair. Every one of his
opponents would know a lot about him, but he'd know nothing of them.
> (2) Is there any particualr reason to
> think he would be any good at Blitz -
Well, yes. All accounts indicate that Morphy was a very quick
player. He took relatively little time for his moves, even though
there was no time limit in his day.
But how he'd do against today's GMs, with or without the opportunity
to study their games, modern opening theory, middle-game strategy,
endgame technique etc., can only be speculated. I will venture the
opinion that Morphy had great talent for chess, and that talent would
enable him to excel today just as it did 150 years ago, assuming he
wanted to play serious chess once he got here. Whether he'd be
anywhere near #1 I don't care to guess, but I suspect he could whup
ass on just about any rcg regular.
> or even more provocatively, that
> a master player wouldn't stand a chance? (3) But following Alberts
> [see his latest at Chessville - which incidentally illustrates very
> provocatively that certain positions in the Sicilian are lost at move
> 10 by Black !!] is Morphyesque or Romantic Era play the way to beat
> the electronic beasts?
>
> Alberts has been looking at the deliberate exchange of material for
> other factors, but certainly not 'romantically', but very precicely
> calculated risks indeed.
>
> He uses "Fritz" itself to measure the risks, and recommends to the
> beast-beater specific levels of white and black risk.
>
> If anyone wants to discuss this subject, please go ahead here - or
> alternately, I can make you an introduction to Dr. A.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
