< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|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
|Jan-10-14|| ||Karpova: Harding endorses Urcan's criticism in his post script to "Looking Back: Chess in 1914 and 1864": http://www.chesscafe.com/kibitz/kib...|
Some quotes on chessgames.com:
<I rarely look at that site, occasionally when other sites link to it, and I have usually found it a waste of time. My own site does not link to it.>
<My first recommendation to you is to delete chessgames.com from your favourites (if it is there) and not to follow any links to it.>
|Jan-10-14|| ||Tabanus: <I suggest the NicBase online database which offers a free searchable database of about 1.7 million high-class games.>|
NicBase is the worst of all IMO.
|Jan-10-14|| ||john barleycorn: Just had my first look at the NIC base and looked up 5 games and found 2 mistakes. About Dr. Harding I gave my opinion in <jessicafischerqueens>'s forum: |
<I just recall Dr. Harding's (the Dr. is important now!) reply was ...what it was. Kind of the <Irish AJ>, imo.>
Marshall vs Chigorin, 1903
is classified as C30 in NIC base
Captain Evans vs McDonnell, 1825
the year given is 1827 in NIC base.
Especially the dating of the last game should upset Dr. Harding. Have they not read his latest book at NIC?
|Jan-10-14|| ||Domdaniel: Harding's comments on CG are indefensible and clearly rooted in ignorance.|
I played him in the 1980s. Oddly, we were both working as drama critics at the time.
|Jan-10-14|| ||whiteshark: From a professional historican point of view he might say so. But this is false reasoning at first and false conclusing thereafter. <chessgames.com> isn't a orign source (like yellowed documents in fuddy-duddy archives) in the first place.|
I appreciated Harding's chess books, his historical works and collections of corr. games, but here <si tacuisses philosophus mansisses> comes to mind.
|Jan-11-14|| ||Karpova: Regarding historical accuracy, his latest article deals with 1914 also and the outbreak of WWI: http://www.chesscafe.com/kibitz/kib...|
The outbreak of the War cancelled the planned WC match between Rubinstein and Dr. Lasker - a fact that should be well known to a serious chess historian at least since 2007, when Donaldson and Minev published the 2nd edition of Volume I of their "The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein" - yet how does Harding deal with this important chess-wise consequence of WWI?
This is how (on the St.Petersburg 1914 format):
<This format, which penalised slow starters and put a premium on avoiding defeats, was widely criticised, especially after it led to the elimination of Rubinstein, who had been hoping to arrange a world championship match with Lasker later in the year.>
First of all, "hoping to arrange" is quite an understatement, considering that the WC conditions had already been published in the 1913-1914 'ACB' (pp. 290-295 of the aforementioned book) and the match was scheduled to begin in October 1914. Even worse is the phrasing which insinuates that St. Petersburg 1914 put an end to the WC match hopes and not the outbreak of WWI.
I quote Donaldson and Minev from p. 304: <The years of World War I were difficult ones for Rubinstein. The first effect of the war was to end the world championship match with Lasker scheduled for October 1914.>
Harding is insecure about when round 7 of St. Petersburg 1914 was played. The February-May 1914 'Wiener Schachzeitung' has a very nice chart with all round dates (western and eastern) and results, etc. on pages 92 to 95. Round 6 was played on April 29, Round 7 on April 30 and Round 8 on May 2.
|Jan-12-14|| ||Karpova: The following is a good demonstration of what can go wrong if you choose to criticise something you didn't read:|
1) Harding's critique
<For example, Urcan's article links to a page about the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess match of 1890-91 and Urcan suspects that chessgames.com has obtained its information from Nick Pope's much more reliable Chess Archaeology website without attribution.>
2) Urcan's critique
<The Steinitz vs Gunsberg (1890/91) page cites one newspaper quote without bothering to give the full details, and instead simply offers a link to the website where the quote was found. It was, in fact, borrowed from Nick Pope's extensive essay, where the source was clearly stated: New York World, December 19, 1890.>
3) The actual page
<One New York newspaper reported after the 5th game:> then follows the quote and below is the footnote <Newspaper excerpt taken from Nick Pope's research at http://www.chessarch.com/index.php>.
Link: Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)
What Urcan criticised was not that Nick Pope wasn't credited, as he clearly was. Urcan criticised that merely the link to <Chess Archaeology> was given, and not made clear which newspaper it was from. That's why Urcan in the end said <[...] where the source was clearly stated: New York World, December 19, 1890.>. Harding, who admits to not reading chessgames.com, but criticising it, failed to grasp the point Urcan made and falsely asserted that the info from the Intro had not been attributed to Nick Pope's <Chess Archaeology> website. To reiterate, Urcan's criticism was that it had solely been attributed to <Chess Archaeology> and not, more detailed, to the exact newspaper also.
It's intriguing, btw, that the link to Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890) works in Urcan's past pieces but not in Harding's article:
I first give the link, and then insert a space below to show the difference between the Urls:
Urcan: Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)
Harding: Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)
Harding has a / instead of . behind chess.
|Jan-12-14|| ||nummerzwei: Apparently Chessgames.com has already decided to retaliate with <cruel and unusual punishment>:|
search "Tim Harding"
search "Timothy Harding"
|Jan-12-14|| ||john barleycorn: <nummerzwei: Soviet style!> :-)|
|Jan-14-14|| ||Karpova: Regarding my above post Timothy David Harding on Dr. Lasker vs Janowsky 1909, which he still believed to have been a title match in 2009, the mistake was silently corrected.|
From <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.>
to <Unfortunately it cannot be said that 1909 itself was a
vintage year for our game. There was no world championship match but
Lasker won an exhibition match against Janowski with embarrassing
Yet, a trace can still be found in his column 'One Hundred Years Ago: Chess in 1910': <(In my column twelve months ago, I had said, following ChessBase and some other writers, that the 1909 Janowsky match was for the world title but I am now persuaded that this was not the case and only their 1910 match was for the title.)>
Interestingly, he does not specify which <other writers> he had followed back then. Was Ray Keene among them? See Edward Winter's http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/.... On a sidenote, in my above post I linked to Edward Winter's clarification of the issue from 2007, so Dr. Harding should have known better in 2009.
|Jan-14-14|| ||Karpova: Dr. Harding on William Davies Evans:
<[...] nephew and heir of Sir William Hamilton (1731-1803) whose wife, Emma, notoriously had an affair with Lord Nelson. Much land at Milford had originally belonged to Hamilton and it is known that Nelson visited the port; the local port was for a time renamed after him. It is possible that young William met Nelson.>
Source: Pages 9-10 of Tim Harding, 'Eminent Victorian chess players', MacFarland & Company, 2012.
|Jan-14-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Karpova> sometimes the storyteller in Dr. Harding gains the upper hand. |
However, changing ("secretly") his text on the events in 1909 is not very professional.
|Jan-14-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Karpova> with the changes of the first paragraph, this text passage must have also been altered, imo.|
<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, which was played in 1910,
but perhaps unwisely he played a second exhibition against Lasker, this
time of ten games, in 1909.>
Can you confirm?
|Jan-14-14|| ||Karpova: <john barleycorn>
Overall, his change in the first paragraph looks awkward to me, as it seems that he tries to keep the original shape and just change the information. As long as he claimed that there was a title match in 1909, this emphasis was justified but now it is not.
They first played this drawn short match (May), which enthused Nardus, Janowski's financial backer, who made a try to arrange a WC match (<Der Veranstalter des Wettkampfes, Herr Nardus, war über den Verlauf der Partien so entzückt, daß er sich für das Zustandekommen eines Kampfes um die Weltmeisterschaft mit allen Kräften einsetzte und 6000 Franken für den Preisfond offerirte.>, page 235 of the August 1909 'Wiener Schachzeitung'), but Dr. Lasker had to leave for New York. Then they played the second match (Oktober to November) which was called <II. Wettkampf Lasker-Janowski> on page 410 of the December 1909 'Wiener Schachzeitung'. And only in 1910 followed the WC match later that year. So now, Dr. Harding mostly got it right but as sources are lacking in his article, it is hard to know what to make of his claim <This apparently emboldened Janowski into raising backing for a world title match,>, when the WSZ makes Nardus appear as the driving force.
|Jan-14-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Karpova: <john barleycorn>|
Overall, his change in the first paragraph looks awkward to me, as it seems that he tries to keep the original shape and just change the information.>
Yes, awkward. more like a schoolboy correcting his homework than a PhD.
|Jan-14-14|| ||Karpova: I have to get back to Dr. Harding's <(In my column twelve months ago, I had said, following ChessBase and some other writers, that the 1909 Janowsky match was for the world title but I am now persuaded that this was not the case and only their 1910 match was for the title.)> |
Not only the mention of <some other writers>, who remain unidentified, is interesting, but also the mention of <ChessBase> is curious. This is his explanation for the wrong info in his 2009 column. I wonder what he is referring to, as already Edward Winter's Chess Explorations (1), published <5/6/2008> on chessbase.com - Link: http://en.chessbase.com/post/edward...- - presents clear evidence and Winter concludes <Lasker survived against Schlechter, and in Berlin on 8 November 1910 there duly began the one and only world championship match between Lasker and Janowsky.>.
Apart from the <writers> (again, Keene?), what other chessbase article he is referring to? He can't mean Winter's article wherein it was shown that the title match took place in 1910, not 1909 as Dr. Harding had originally claimed.
|Jan-15-14|| ||Karpova: It is definitely necessary to work on the accuracy of online chess game databases. It's not an excuse, but a good explanation for a number of mistakes that books contain mistakes also, which are then taken over by databases.|
Such a case is detailed by Edward Winter in C.N. 6942. Link: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... The game Leon L. Labatt won against Dr. Emanuel Lasker in New Orleans, 1907, is often given as a Simul game.
I quote Edward Winter <A well-known brevity [...] is often said to have occurred in a simultaneous exhibition. See, for example, page 68 of 'Play The Evans Gambit' by T. Harding and B. Cafferty (London, 1997), as well as various blind-leading-the-blind database productions.>
This is surprising as it was not a Simul game, but an individual game. Edward Winter reproduces page 105 of the July 1907 'Lasker’s Chess Magazine', which clearly states that it was an individual game.
|Feb-20-14|| ||Karpova: See <whiteshark>'s posts|
<whiteshark: ChessBase 'Correspondence Database 2013' has this game with following details:
[Black "Salokangas, Hannu"]
[EventType "game (corr)"]
Link: Vermeulen vs Akohangas, 1948
<whiteshark: although Hannu Salokangas 's <birthday May-16-1956> would indicate that it was a prenatal corr.game, at least from his side. ;)>
Link: Vermeulen vs Akohangas, 1948
<whiteshark: Tim Harding's <UltraCorr Database (2006)> shows the above data, too.>
Link: Vermeulen vs Akohangas, 1948
It would be interesting to find out what Dr. Harding's sources for the game in question are.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·