To be explicit - I'm thinking of the recent Yokoyama adventures.

Ah, see - best to be explicit. I would encourage everyone to use the <1994 Gaige> now that it's freely available to all.

And yes, all the material is repeated, perhaps with corrections.

It wasn't strictly unpublished, afaik, as many copies were circulated. I think McFarland might have published this version as well - but again - please confirm.

https://books.google.com/books?id=H...

But we need to review this stuff, especially given Hilbert and Gaige's input.

<NCA> should have done this instead of me.

Let's just say I'm not expecting any thanks.

(I still wonder where <Elihu> came from, though that one might have been answered by <NCA>, after my prompting I might add!)

I think he should have sent one to you too! (When was your 1st edition Pillsbury?)

https://www.danheisman.com/dans-boo...

Very pleasant fellow, lives outside of Philadelphia. He said he will contact all his colleagues in the Philadelphia area with knowledge about players from the old chess club, which sadly is now permanently closed.

He agreed that Gaige was an expert archivist of Philadelphian chess, but when I explained I pulled what Chess Archaeology was using (plural) "original source material," articles with Ernest S. Maguire... he said that original source material is about as good as it gets. I think he is a historian himself and an author of many books.

November 13, 1873 - December 16, 1954

Ernest S. Maguire was born in Washington, D.C . and died in Philadelphia.

I found Maguire's death certificate and military registration card as well as obituary and other material to confirm his identity, including geneaology.

https://best-in-chess.blogspot.com/...

I am the sole representative of Chess Archaeology, so by contacting me you're contacting the CA website.

It could lead to funny outcomes. i.e., the Professor being cited, and he reads over what people are writing, and he be like, "That's not right."

However, I don't care who they are, prestigious or renown, at the end of the day they are human. Humans make errors. Authors (Latin root, auctor, signifies a creator, founder, or promoter. It's the root for both "author" (as in writer) and "authority" (as in the power or right to command) such as Gaige, should be taken seriously. But only if their claims mesh together cohesively with other documented facts. All informed opinion should be based entirely on facts.

Despite finding the above nugget, which I appreciate as is (and out of context, whatever it was), I don't even like Wiki's definition of skepticism.

Good science needs good skepticism, as does good chess history.