|May-06-08|| ||whiteshark: Happy Birthday, Mr. Harding!
You are my favourite 'Kibitzer'!!
|Jan-15-09|| ||Karpova: Tim Harding: <Unfortunately it cannot be said that 1909 itself was a vintage year for our game. There was a world championship match but Lasker won it with embarrassing ease.>|
<In Paris, early in 1909, Lasker and Janowski played a small match in which each player won two games. This apparently emboldened Janowski into raising backing for a world title match. After a draw in the opening game, Lasker won four in a row before Janowski scored his only win. The final score was 8-2.>
The source is Tim Harding's January 2009 "The Kibitzer" column called "Chess in the Year 1909": http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...
Of course, there was no WC match between Dr. Lasker and Janowski in 1909. Their WC match took place in 1910 and ended 8-0 (3 draws) for Dr. Lasker: Lasker-Janowski World Championship Match (1910)
Edward Winter's C.N. 5199 from September 30, 2007 sums it up: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
|Mar-17-09|| ||whiteshark: Harding’s Axiom:
<What is untheoretical today, will become theory tomorrow!>
|May-06-09|| ||wordfunph: I love reading this guy's "The Kibitzer" column at chesscafe.com, Happy Birthday Tim!|
|Jan-24-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Tim Harding is an excellent author and chronicler of correspondence chess history through his "ChessMail" publishing company. I have the following books in my collection:|
"Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures"
"The Write Move - An Anthology of the best writing in Correspondence Chess"
"50 Golden Chess Games"
"64 Great Chess Games - Masterpieces of Postal and E-mail Chess"
"Red Letters - The Correspondence Chess Championships of the Soviet Union"
|Mar-06-10|| ||wordfunph: "Do not try to 'win' the post-mortem as a matter of pride."|
"Everyone makes mistakes when they play chess - but strong players do not make the same mistake twice."
Tim Harding (taken from his book Why You Lose at Chess)
|May-13-10|| ||refutor: at chesscafe.com this week he gave an expose of a correspondence player who would score 1/2 by letting the players move against each other$...sometimes in different sections of the same tournament to make it less obvious. is this more immoral than agreeing to draws? or computer use in correspondence?|
|May-13-10|| ||Jim Bartle: You mean playing white in one game and black in the other, and following the moves of the opponents?|
|May-13-10|| ||refutor: exactly.|
|Jan-19-11|| ||GrahamClayton: Here is a game not in the database:
[Event "Oxfordshire-Essex county match"]
[White "Harding, Timothy David"]
[Black "Penrose, Dr Jonathan"]
1.e4 c5 2. f3 e6 3. d3 c6 4. g3 d5 5. bd2 d6 6. g2 ge7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. h4 d7 9. f4 f5 10. b3 b5 11. ef5 ef5 12. b2 b6 13. h1 ae8 14. h5 b4 15. df3 d4 16. f2 7d5 17. a3 f6 18. g5 g4 19. d2 e7 20. h5 g6 21. xg6 hxg6 22. h3 c6 23. e1 f6 0-1
Source: "Why You Lose at Chess", Tim Harding, Courier Dover Publications, 2001
|Aug-08-11|| ||midknightblue: anyone have his book on correspondance chess in great britain and ireland. I am enjoying the book, but i do have one criticism. In reviewing the games, I have found examples where he gives a move a ? when in fact it is the winning move and best move (as verified with deep fritz 12). In fact in a single game, there were only two moves with annotation or commentary and both were flat out wrong. The game was Sainsburry vs Jerram, County and District Correspondance Championship. Opening Vienna, Frankenstein-Dracula variation. I know it is annoying to have GM (in this case correspondance GM) analysis discredited by engine wielding amateurs. Drives me nuts when I listen to icc or playchess live feeds of super GM tourneys. But in a book, the auther should really check his work with an engine.
Anyway, the book is still enjoyable.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||wordfunph: another masterpiece by Tim Harding..
+ Eminent Victorian Chess Players - Ten Biographies
Available Spring/Summer 2012