|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-28-12 | | AVRO38: <keypusher><This was written before the St. Petersburg tournament that, again according to AVRO, entitled Steinitz to a return match.> <keypusher><It was published in 1896, after the St. Petersburg tournament obviously.> I'll take that as a lame admission that you lost the debate. <But it doesn't matter. As Cheshire and innumerable other sources state, the 1894 match was for the world championship.> Nobody ever disputed that certain elements did indeed consider it a world championship. The point is that it was a disputed world championship, with most of the top masters, including Gunsberg, Tarrasch, and Chigorin rejecting the claim. Their views carry a lot more weight in my book than those of some hack named Horace Cheshire. |
 |
Jan-28-12
 | | keypusher: <I'll take that as a lame admission that you lost the debate.> There was no debate, AVRO38. No one ever debates you. What happens instead is this. Some topic comes up -- Lasker, Botvinnik, Alekhine, Steinitz, the 1894 chess championship -- and you make an absurd assertion, which other people refute. Then you make another absurd assertion, which is again refuted. Then you make another ridiculous claim, and the cycle continues. I sometimes learn something from these strange episodes. But not from you. Cg has a lot of knowledgeable and patient posters like jnpope or thomastonk. In the process of refuting whatever nonsense you are spouting, they post some very interesting stuff. |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | AVRO38: <I sometimes learn something from these strange episodes.> Apparently you haven't learned anything because you claim I'm a troll but you take the bait every time. Notice how you're the only one posting responses..LOSER!! However, if I'm not a troll then another one of your claims has been proven false. Either way you come out looking like an idiot. You look like a schmuck, you play like a schmuck, you are a schmuck! Scott Thomson, super-schmuck! Scott Thomson |
|
Jan-28-12
 | | Shams: <Apparently you haven't learned anything because you claim I'm a troll but you take the bait every time.> His taking the bait means you're not a troll? Can you make sense even for one sentence? |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | AVRO38: <Shams><His taking the bait means you're not a troll?> Apparently you're just as stupid as Scott Thomson, and that's a tall order!! Go learn basic reading comprehension and leave blogging to people who have a command of the English language. |
|
Jan-28-12
| | Shams: <Apparently you're just as stupid as Scott Thomson, and that's a tall order!!> That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
<Go learn basic reading comprehension and leave blogging to people who have a command of the English language.> This site is not a "blog". We are not "blogging" here. Do you have one of those Internet Dictionaries for Grandmothers by your side? I'll leave you one brilliant retort before you're off to the sandbox. Please don't disappoint me, I'm hoping for something really special here. Dig deep. Pretend you are the Lance Armstrong of trolls, staring up at l'alpe d'huez. That's the frame of mind I need you to be in. |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | King Death: <Shams> You better explain it to <AVRO38>, it's not like you just didn't but this boy's really something. |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | AVRO38: <We are not "blogging" here> <The word blog is a portmanteau of the words web log. Simply put, a blog is a website with content that is written frequently and added in a chronological order.> Sounds like a blog to me...Apparently this site is a magnet for really stupid people!! You say I'm a troll but you keep responding to me!!! If I am a troll, then I'm doing an excellent job of exposing what a bunch of idiots you are by making you jump like a bunch of dogs every time I toss a bone. |
|
Jan-28-12
 | | twinlark: <Notice how you're the only one posting responses..LOSER!!> Interesting. What does that say about the person to whom the response is directed? A self-hating kibitzer maybe? |
|
Jan-28-12
| | Shams: <AVRO38> Frankly, I think I deserved a better effort than that. Well, it is what it is. Goodbye. |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | King Death: <twinlark: <Notice how you're the only one posting responses..LOSER!!>
Interesting. What does that say about the person to whom the response is directed? A self-hating kibitzer maybe?> I'd think it would say more about the person who used it than about the target of the abuse. Other than that I agree with your evaluation. |
|
Jan-29-12
| | twinlark: <KD> we're on the same page. Your interpretation is actually the interpretation I intended, as the response I'm referring to is the one referred to in the bracketed quote rather than the bracketed quote per se. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | ughaibu: Interesting that Steinitz said "Zukertort, Blackburne and Martínez contested it twice each in Matches". Why are all but one of these not generally considered to be championship matches? If one takes Steinitz seriously about this, then one should accept that he wouldn't have considered himself to be champion had he lost any of these. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | King Death: <twinlark> Enough said, but I wasn't about to put words in your mouth. Way too much has been said and I'd already put the abuser on ignore. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | AVRO38: <keypusher><King Death><twinlark><Shams> Watch the doggies jump...here doggie doggie... |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | AVRO38: Since silence is an admission of defeat, I accept your admission. How anyone can claim that Wilhelm Steinitz was world champion before 1886 or after 1889 is beyond comprehension. Even the years 1886-1889 is a stretch when you consider the circumstances of the 1886 match. After Zukertort wiped the floor with Steinitz in New York (+4-1=0) most commentators at the time were predicting a final score of +10-1=0. This is perfectly reasonable considering the strength of the two players. Unfortunately, on the way to St. Louis, Zukertort suffered what we would call a mini-stroke today and asked for a postponement of the match. Nobody expected Steinitz to act honorably under these circumstances, and he didn't disappoint. Zukertort's stroke on the train to St. Louis is the only reason Steinitz is considered a world champion at all today. Steinitz was clearly one of the weakest players of the late 19th century, having failed to win a single international competition for over 25 years (1874-1899). He did tie one tournament with Winawer, but failed to win the playoff. I know of no other world champion that lost every international competition he participated in for a 25 year period! His only success in this 25 year period was in offhand matches that were little more than skittles games. Some matches being played entirely in one day! |
|
Jan-29-12
| | twinlark: Warning: don't feed the troll. |
|
Jan-29-12
 | | jnpope: <King Death>: Thanks for pointing out the ignore feature! |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | ughaibu: Zukertort didn't need a stroke, it was a miracle that he wasn't 4-1 down after the first five games. He only had two convincing wins in the entire match. What kind of idiots were predicting a 10-1 result? They cant have been chess players. |
|
Jan-30-12
 | | RookFile: I can't imagine anybody predicting 10 to 1. |
|
Jun-10-12
 | | Chessical: AVRO38's statement "<Steinitz was clearly one of the weakest players of the late 19th century, having failed to win a single international competition for over 25 years (1874-1899)>" is incorrect; refuted by the record. From 1859, Steinitz's worst tournament was London 1862 (although he was awarded the brilliancy prize for his win over Mongredien), nearly all the rest were first or second places. For example: 1861, Vienna championship, 1st
1862, London championship, 1st
1865, Dublin, 1st-2nd, tied with MacDonnell.
1866, London handicap tournament, 1st
1872, London,1st
1873, Vienna, 1st-2nd, won the tournament after a play-off with Joseph Henry Blackburne. 1882, Vienna, 1st-2nd, tied with Winawer and drew the play-off.
1894, New York championship, 1st
1897, New York, 1st-2nd
As tournament became more frequent at the end of the 19th century, he played succesfully in the following super-tournaments: 1895-6, St Petereberg - 2nd to Lasker
1896 Nuremberg - 6th on 11/18, the winner Lasker scored (13.5)
1898 Vienna 4th, in a very large field and ahead of Schlechter, Chigorin, Burn, Paul Lipke, Maroczy, Alapin, Blackburne, Schiffers, Marco, Showalter, Walbrodt, etc 1898 Cologne, 5th ahead of Schlechter, Showalter, Johann Berger, Janowski and Schiffers Steinitz's one big failure being his last tournament 1899, London. He was 10-11th. |
|
| Jun-10-12 | | Petrosianic: <AVRO38's statement... is incorrect; refuted by the record.> Have you guys not figured out yet that AVRO makes mistakes deliberately just to get attention that he couldn't get any other way? |
|
| Jun-10-12 | | AVRO38: <Petrosianic><Chessical><AVRO38's statement "<Steinitz was clearly one of the weakest players of the late 19th century, having failed to win a single international competition for over 25 years (1874-1899)>" is incorrect; refuted by the record.> You say my statement is refuted by the record and for proof you offer pre-1874 tournaments and a national U.S. tournament in 1897! I'm still waiting for you to refute the ACTUAL statement that Steinitz "failed to win a single international competition for over 25 years (1874-1899)". |
|
Jun-12-12
| | Chessical: <Petrosianic> You were quite right. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | King Death: < Chessical: AVRO38's statement "<Steinitz was clearly one of the weakest players of the late 19th century, having failed to win a single international competition for over 25 years (1874-1899)>" is incorrect; refuted by the record...> Steinitz was one of the weakest players of the late 19th century? Shows what I know, I thought he could really play. Reading this gave me the best laugh I've had in a few days. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
