< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 611 OF 611 ·
|Jan-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: <Hard to say without knowing your game score...>|
Thought you might say that. Source is the (London) Daily News, March 30th, 1904, p.11. Submitted.
|Jan-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: <Tabanus: <MissS> Shoosmith: cannot find it, but Brian Denman says, without ref., in http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic..., 12 Jan 1877.>|
This site allows you to search and order historical birth certificates: https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth...
The free search gives only limited information, but it's sufficient to confirm that the birth took place (or was registerd) in the first 3 months of 1877, so I think it's certain that Shoosmith was 35, not 34, at death.
|Jan-15-17|| ||Paarhufer: <Source is the (London) Daily News, March 30th, 1904, p.11.> No idea how I should check this.|
|Jan-15-17|| ||Tabanus: It's Shoosmith vs Leonhardt, QGD, 0-1 in 32 moves, in London Daily News, March 30th, 190<5>, p. 11.|
|Jan-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: Well, 32 moves are given, but (...) 0-1.|
|Jan-15-17|| ||Paarhufer: <Tab> Thanks. |
I have another one from the match, one from London 1904 and one from Ostende 1907. Haven't played through the moves. Maybe later.
|Jan-15-17|| ||Paarhufer: Leonhardt vs Shoosmith. The game from the match 1905 went as follows:
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. d3 Nf6 4. f4 Bc5 5. Nc3 d6 6. f5 Na5 7. Qf3 Nxc4 8. dxc4 h6 9. g4 Bd7 10. h4 Bb4 11. Nge2 Bc6 12. Bd2 Bxc3 13. Nxc3 Nd7 14. O-O-O Qe7 15. Be3 b6 16. Nd5 Bxd5 17. cxd5 O-O-O 18. Rd3 Kb7 19. a4 Nb8 20. a5 Rc8 21. Rb3 c5 22. axb6 a6 23. Qe2 f6 24. Kd2 Nd7 25. Ra1 Ra8 26. Rba3 Rhc8 27. b4 c4 28. b5 Nb8 29. Ra5 Qe8 30. Ke1 1-0 (Not a gem, I would say.)|
I found the games from 1904 and 1907 meanwhile also at 365chess.com and in chessbase's online database.
|Jan-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: <Leonhardt vs Shoosmith.>|
<I found the games from 1904 and 1907 meanwhile also at 365chess.com>
I just checked and 365chess appear to have all sixteen of Shoosmith's London 1904 games, so why you say you've only one new one?
|Jan-15-17|| ||Paarhufer: <MissScarlett: I just checked and 365chess appear to have all sixteen of Shoosmith's London 1904 games, so why you say you've only one new one?> I searched my databases and files for Leonhartdt & Shoosmith (and not for Shoosmith alone), and I got three hits (the games from 1904, 1905 and 1907). I cannot find the word *new* in my posts: I wrote "I have another one from the match" (i.e. 1905).|
|Jan-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: In future, I suggest you make yourself clearer. Alles klar?|
|Jan-15-17|| ||TheFocus: <MissScarlett: In future, I suggest you make yourself clearer. Alles klar?>|
He was more clear than you were.
|Jan-15-17|| ||zanzibar: Voting for best historian or best historical member of <CG>?|
User: Jesus Christ
Is in the running.
|Jan-16-17|| ||Retireborn: <z> I thought the Romans had crossed Him off the list, but then he came back from the dead, so to speak.|
|Jan-16-17|| ||Stonehenge: If you believe in fairy tales.|
|Jan-16-17|| ||Tabanus: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...|
Just to remind <zanzibar> of the use of sources. Whether he likes them or not. Or likes the author that uses them.
|Jan-16-17|| ||zanzibar: I pray for all your souls.|
|Jan-16-17|| ||Paarhufer: <MissScarlett: In future, I suggest you make yourself clearer.> I would like to emphasize that I like sources immensely, but even more I appreciate friendly manners. Exclamations like <Source!> I ignore on principle.|
<TheFocus: He was more clear than you were.> Thank you.
|Jan-16-17|| ||MissScarlett: That's all we need - a tetchy Kraut.|
|Jan-16-17|| ||zanzibar: I'd pray for <MissS> too, except the big guy upstairs already told me there's not much hope.|
(There's always some hope... if you believe in miracles)
|Jan-16-17|| ||OhioChessFan: I got a taste of the real world, baby....|
|Jan-16-17|| ||TheFocus: <zanzibar: I'd pray for <MissS> too, except the big guy upstairs already told me there's not much hope.> |
She does have her usefulness.
She may be <Edward Winter> in disguise.
And if she is him, I want to ask him: "Hey! Why did you ask for information and I go down to the library, look it up, make a copy of the article, e-mail it to you, and... what's the deal? Why have you been sitting on it? That's okay. Tomorrow I will forward the information straight to the original inquirer to Chess Notes. Forward the e-mail to him, and the admonishment that if he needs some Bobby Fischer information that others might not have, come to me first. I could have saved you some time."
And now with that article, that means I have discovered some new Fischer tournament information that John Donaldson and I had discussed in e-mails.
I'll e-mail Big John tomorrow. I think as one of the leading experts on Fischer, he will be pleased to have the information.
|Jan-17-17|| ||OhioChessFan: <Focus: "Hey! Why did you ask for information and I go down to the library, look it up, make a copy of the article, e-mail it to you, and... what's the deal? Why have you been sitting on it? >|
I don't get Edward Winter either. An arrogant observer of both the chess scene and observers of the chess scene, and daily begs people to do his work for him. Really, now?
|Jan-17-17|| ||Tabanus: <daily begs people to do his work for him>|
What an arrogant statement. Who are you to question his motives? Who are the CG editors?
|Jan-17-17|| ||Tabanus: I added the following text at the end of Game Collection: Korchnoi - Petrosian Candidates Semifinal 1974, to distance myself from the insults made by <zanzibar>:|
<The main sources for this summary of events were: [[Chess Is My Life]] by Viktor Korchnoi, [[Candidates' Matches 1974]] ed. by Bozidar Kazic, and the article [[Gross-Scandal]] by Alexander Galyas. From the latter, only a tiny part was used. Whether these sources can be trusted, or whether the summarizer (User: Tabanus) cited them correctly, is up to the reader to evaluate.>
So you see, it's a sourced text with all the (my) cards on the table. In addition, as was the case with Teplitz-Schönau 1922 (the tournament book), there may be differing information in other cards.
May I also remind you that there are now few "facts" about what happened. The text is a theory about what happened, put forward for verification or rejection. It is falsifiable (which is one major point of using footnotes).
The Kazic book I had borrowed, but did not take copy of this match in it because I thought <jess> would write it up. So I used the Kazic text as it is transcribed in her game collection, without page numbers.
Have a colorful day!
|Jan-17-17|| ||Tabanus: <MissScarlett> Indeed. The birth Index (for Jan/Feb/March 1877) of Shoosmith says "Watford, Fol. 3a, page 431", and with that info you can order (and pay for) a copy of the orig. birth certificate - which apparently still exists in this case.|
<Paarhufer> I've learned that MissS is not nearly as bad as she/he may seem. So please try to be thick-skinned. Btw, you appear to be competent in historical matters, and I would welcome you as an editor. Don't let the nerds stop you ;)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 611 OF 611 ·