< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
|Apr-12-18|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> a Marco bias isn't necessarily such a bad bias, although he does have a tendency to sometimes add extra moves at the end of the game to play out obvious finishes... or so I suspect.|
As for <Fahrni--Duras>, I'm of the opinion that the white rook never belongs on f1 after moving off it (39.Rf1 ... huh?!)
|Apr-14-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Round 2 QUestions
<Swiderski–Spielmann: Tpos 3,4 (PB bad)
1906-06-09 Algemeen Handelsblad p6c4 – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=...
1906-06-08 De Telegraaf p2c1 – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=...>
I think Gillam (and <CG>) have s this wrong. Besides your sources, ACB v3 No9 p192 also has the 3...Nc6/ 4...Nf6 move order. Gillam and <CG> seem to be the only ones with 3...Nf6 and 4...Nc6.
<CG> having 3...Nf6 / 4...Nc6 makes me wonder if it's an error in databases in general. That might be where Gillam got it too. It could also be from Tarrasch, whom Gillam mentions as a source for his notes (though without any specific citation.)
By the way, this kibitz cites a source which has White resigning after move 20!
Swiderski vs Spielmann, 1906 (kibitz #3)
So this was not a case when only Marco gave extra moves.
Wolf–Suechting: xtra moves, at move 30 + end (…Bxa3 cxd5+) (PB bad?)
DSZ v61 N11 (Nov 1906) G-7578 p326/336
We discussed this in tje Bistro.
Biographer Bistro (kibitz #18146)
The move <30.Qc6 Rd6> definitely belongs in the score. Extra moves at the end of agame are normally analysis of the final position. There seems not reason to add an extra move in the middle of game.
Janowski's note was probably based on the shorter version found in Deutsche Schachzeitung. Rmember, the marco book didn't come out until well into 1907.
Salwe–Mieses: xtra moves at end, …43 to 46, clearly a draw, though Marco agrees with PB. (PB bad?)
1906-06-12 De Telegraaf p2c5 – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=...
Once again it's Marco with the longer version. I would feel much better about trusting him if it didn't happen every time.
This is the closest case yet, since th extra moves are of the type an annotator would include in a note. . But I would still include them.
This may be wrong, but I'd like to stick with Marco's versions until he is proven guilty. Remember, he is working with the co-operation of the Tournament Committee, probably meaning he has access to their official record, and is working at a relatively leisurely pace (it took almost a year to produce this book). The newspapers are relying on hastily assembled press releases and reports, and have time and space crunches of their own.
But we still need to keep a critical eye open every time tis happens.
|Apr-14-18|| ||Phony Benoni: <zanzibar> Round 3 questions|
<1906.06.07 A00 0 (R3 (1.3.3)) 0-1 Post--Taubenhaus (Marco G-47 p39/41)>
Where I think there's a tpos 10-12 - Macro having:
<10...Nxd2 11.Qxd2 O-O 12.Bc2>
Black would likely have a ...Nxf7 option somewhere in there, otherwise.>
This looks like the same sort of case as Swiderski vs Spielmann, 1906. In that game Marco has 3...Nc6 and 4...Nf6, GIllam (who used Marco as a source of ntoes) had 3...Nf6 and 4...Nc6.
In PostA E Post vs Taubenhaus, 1906, we have these move orders:
Marco: 10...Nxd2 11.Qxd2 0-0 12.Bc2
Gillam: 10...O-O 11.B2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2
In Swiderski-Spielmann we have good contemporary evidence that Mrco's order of moves is correct. There is not the same evidence in Post-Taubenhaus/
In both cases, Gillam's choice is by far the most popular move oderder today, but relatively less popular in 1906. I think it possible that, instead of a contemporary source, he used a databases which included games in which the OOM had been tweaked to fit a standard sequence.
I've changed to Marco's OOM in both cases.
|Apr-14-18|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> I just published my tracking of the genesis of Macro's book, so I'll have to circle back on the game review tomorrow. |
Thanks for the updates - I'll report back soon...
|Apr-15-18|| ||zanzibar: Oh, I guess I can comment my bias/approach - Gillam isn't an issuing authority in comparison to Marco, so unless he cites a difference source to compare against, then Marco takes precedence.|
|Apr-15-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Giving Marco preference definitely agrees with my observations.|
You mentioned something earlier about score corrections in either textual or PGN form. PGN would probably be easier for me to work with, but do but whatever is easier for you
|Apr-15-18|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> ah right, I should have posted this a while ago (though I think by now most of the silly transcription mistakes have been fixed - thanks to comparing against your copy!):|
BTW- you can update your files on the Google drive. If you drop in a new version with the same name Google will just update it in place (while saving/stacking the old versions).
|Apr-16-18|| ||Phony Benoni: <zanzibar> Lost power due to ice storm, so I'm at my former workplace right now. Can't do any chess work, though,|
|Apr-16-18|| ||zanzibar: Ice storms in mid-April?!
We had snow flurries here yesterday...
It's so depressing I can't do any (useful) work, either. Thank goodness for CG!
|Apr-18-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Power back, but Internet access still erratic.
Just to clarify: the file is the result of your searches in contemporary sources?
|Apr-18-18|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> yes, all the games were transcribed by me from the Source given for each game.|
It's independent of your games, except for the ϵ²-checking to eliminate obvious transcription mistakes/typos.
If it's more convenient for you I can reprocess the games to put the Source tag as an readable ending comment in the PGN movelist (an ideal I'm considering doing anyways).
|Apr-18-18|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> does Gillam have photographs/bios of all the players?|
Is there anyway to get the photos?
(And does he give their sources?)
|Apr-18-18|| ||zanzibar: Oh, and did you see this any mention of Fahrni's artistic talents?|
Doll (kibitz #1631)
|Apr-18-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Gillam provides brief bios for all of the players, ranging from a couple of sentences for Swiderski to 2½ pages for Reggio. THe more prominents players get around a page, and most of the others several short paragraphs.|
He includes thumbnail portraits of everybody except Sournin, but no indication of sources. I haven't looked carefully, but I guess they are publicly available rather than from a special collection of some sort. For example, here's the Teichman shot he uses:
And this, of course, is not the original source.
I have no way of scanning or transmitting these.
As for the art work, it make me wish Fahrni had been Irish. Then I could have described it as Fahrni Blarney.
|Apr-18-18|| ||Phony Benoni: The "Source" tag is not displaying in m version of ChessBzse. I tried copying the notation to a Notepad (which sometimes works with hidden notes), but not here.|
I'm only seeing about thirty items for checking (some of which we've discussed already), so maybe I can do without.
|Apr-18-18|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> just open the original download file with Notepad - the Source tags will be there.|
As for <Fahrni>, isn't there a little bit of Irish in all of us? (At least here in Boston there is).
Don't be too hard on him though - he was institutionalized several times in his life, and I believe some of his art was done during these times as therapy. Not 100% sure though...
|Apr-18-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Well, I'm still not sure how I did it, but I managed to open the file in Notepad. Both of the versions will come in handy.|
I just made up the Fahrni remark for the pun, not having read any of his unfortunate history.
|Apr-22-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Just droped a new copy of the Osten All PGN file, along with a text file "3d run" which summarizes my comments on your questions (and brings up a couple of new ones).|
Anxious to get this behind me. I miss the relative sanity of the US Open.
|Apr-22-18|| ||zanzibar: Ha! <Phony>...|
I'm circling around again too, having finished a pass over all the players bio's - at least for zbase.ssp and zbase.spf files.
I wish you could scan material - don't you work in a library?
I use a local libary's scanner, when needed, which has a pretty good OCR converter.
You know, you can also take jpg pictures with your iPhone/Android (or digital camera) for photos, and even use Google drive's Google Doc as an OCR converter.
Even with access to a good scanner I often use Google Doc for such purposes - e.g. to get text for translation in a non-OCR'ed PDF (or a snip clippings I make).
I assume you know about this stuff - but maybe you don't ... ?
|Apr-22-18|| ||Phony Benoni: I-Phone?
The fact is I have a very bare-bones flip phone with a very small limit on calls and text. Nor do I want more. This isn't that important to me.
This is OK because I don't even know how to text anyway. I can't read the letters on the phone, and can't figure out how to put spaces between words. That photo stuff is completely out of my league.
My library did not provide scanning services for public or personal use. I could have pulled some strings, but I have my ethics about asking for special privileges. Or stuff like copying large quantities of copyrighted text.
So you just have to face the fact that you're dealing with a Luddite who has a conscience and is getting thoroughly sick of all this rigmarole and just want's to get the games submitted and return to the US Open where I belong.
|Apr-22-18|| ||zanzibar: <Or stuff like copying large quantities of copyrighted text.>|
Nobody is asking for copyright violations here - especially since most of the material I deal with is definitely Public Domain. Certainly all the <Ostend (1906)> material is.
And I have few qualms with copying Public Domain material, as our framers of the Constitution intended:
<Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”>
Note the word "limited" - not "unlimited".
I think I'm pursuing "usefuls arts". If you think it's just rigmarole then let's just go our separate ways. I'm happy enough as is with my end of the work - it's completely accessible to all...
|Apr-22-18|| ||zanzibar: <Certainly all the <Ostend (1906)> material is.>|
That is, all the material I've been working with...
|Apr-22-18|| ||zanzibar: <For General Audience>...|
I know copyright rules are a pain, but they're important to know. I wish to make clear that this is not the first time I've posted the above link.
|Apr-22-18|| ||zanzibar: Note <Ostend (1906)> material is definitely earlier than 1923 - so none of the original material from this period is under copyright anymore.|
One question to ask is if one could copy Gillam's copying of Public Domain material? Now if I read the legal decisions correctly:
Cf. The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (SDNY 1998)
<... which had ruled that, in order to be original, works ‘need not be original or novel in form, but it must originate with the author and not be copied from another work’. >
I tend to believe Gillam's copies of PD material can be copied.
In fact, I believe this protects much of Winter's free reproductions of the many historical photographs on his chess history site.
Normally though, I try to avoid this kind of copying when I can, preferring to get my photographs from the google books Public Domain material, whenever possible.
|Apr-23-18|| ||Phony Benoni: <Zanzibar> Sorry, I just flew off the handle yesterday. It happens to me occasionally, usually when I feel hassled. Your message just happened to be the one that set me off.|
There's no need to continue the constitutional law lesson. That wasn't what I was really upset about.
So let's just get back to where we stand with Ostend 1906. But first, just let me thank you for all the help. I make far too many mistakes these days, and appreciate it when somebody checks up on me.
I've tried to answer all the question you brought up earlier, and reconcile other discrepancies.
I have a file of 137 games to submit. Once those are sent in, Unless you know of something present, I'lll then take a break until they actually arrive. By then I'll probably need a break from the US Open and be ready to clean up the introduction and get this done.
By the way, I'm actually retired now. Just an Average Joe where the Library is concerned.
Before going off half-cocked, I probably should have asked what sort of material you could have likes scanned. Maybe I can do something I could do.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·