|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 784 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-04-16
 | | WannaBe: If Chi-Sox win tonight, they'll join Chi-Cubs as first teams to reach 20 wins! Start planning that parade in November. |
|
| May-04-16 | | luftforlife: <Phony Benoni>: No worries! First, I understand eyesight difficulties. Second, I share your skepticism (hence "purportedly," as, previously, "spurious"). Third, I share your desire for accuracy; "bull-headed" is the last thing I would call you! ;-) Your point about Robert Iapinni is well-taken, as were your prior points about John Curdo. No axe to grind here either; just want to help you out and to get it right. I have another lead to chase myself, and one you may already have pursued. The lead I will chase is this: in Chess Horizons, Vol. 36, No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2004, which was published by the Massachusetts Chess Association (MACA), and unfortunately is not archived online at their website, George Mirijanian wrote a one-page retrospective of 1964 U.S. Open at page 44. I will not only seek that retrospective, but I will also contact MACA (as I've done the Boylston Chess Club; yet to hear back) to see what information they might have. The lead you may already have pursued (read no mention of it in your U.S. Open Tournament Index, or in your comments to 65th U.S. Open Boston 1964) is this: GM Andrew Soltis, The United States Chess Championship, 1845-2011 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 3rd ed. 2012). I'll keep digging. For now, I'm off to savor some jambalaya with hot boudin before the Sox-Sox clash (glad to have Carson Smith back in the 'pen; John Farrell should've left him in, and left Junichi Tazawa off the hill, but that's another story). More soon. :) |
|
May-04-16
 | | Phony Benoni: <;iftforlife> Woo! I'm getting a b it behind! The Lombardy - Curdo game at 365Chess doesn't look right either. One reason is the Goichberg - Curdo game you found. Another is that the partial results table I have at the collection (Game Collection: US Open 1964, Boston) has all twelve of Lombardy's results, so there is not room for a game with Curdo. 365Chess can be a useful, even essential tool, but neither it or any other database can be accepted uncritically. There is simply not enough fact checking, and the errors are all out there just waiting to be made. And that includes my own work, of course.
I would be grateful if the Mirijanian article provided any new information, even just names of participants. That could help clear up questions that have come up today. Tigers getting pummeled by the Indians again. That will be five losses in a row to the Tribe. |
|
| May-04-16 | | luftforlife: <Phony Benoni>: Feel free to call me <luft> if you like. :) I'm with you: I never put too much faith in databases, including 365Chess. I just wanted to start there, and at ChessBites, as they have tournament collections. I always seek out the best sources, and databases usually don't qualify, for most of them don't feature any source documentation, and they often contain and perpetuate data-errors. That's one reason I favor Source tags here on <cg> (they foster accountability, and facilitate fact-checking), and that's one reason I seek out hard and reliable sources outside of databases, as you do. Publications can be wrong too, but usually they are edited, and generally they offer a greater degree of seriousness than is found on most database websites. (I like to think <cg> is better than its online counterparts for its reliability and its well-written, well-researched entries.) Yes, Dr. Tartakower's dictum applies to fact-checking as well as to chess moves. :) Have you consulted GM Soltis's work? Again, I figure you probably have done, and so I don't mean to cite to the obvious, but I didn't see his volume mentioned in your lists of sources, and so I thought I'd run it by you. I will seek out the Mirijanian recollection and follow up on some leads in that direction. It's looking tough for Clay Buchholz, as it has done for a while now. Hoping the Red Sox can beat the White Sox tonight to even the series. Sorry your Tigers are losing again to the Tribe. By the way, you might enjoy this post, and the discussion that precedes it: chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #25018). |
|
May-04-16
| | Phony Benoni: <luftforlife> I haven't seen the new Soltis book, but based on earlier edition I doubt it will be of much help. His concentration was on the Closed or Invitational Championship, not on the Open. In any case, I've reached the point where using print resources is very difficult. Online text is fine, since I can enlarge the font as needed. But you haven't lived until you've tried to unput a game into a database while holding a book in one hand and a magnifying glass in the other. I'm just not that deft. |
|
| May-04-16 | | luftforlife: <Phony Benoni>: Thanks for that clarification on Soltis's work; his concentration on the Closed Championship wasn't readily evident in the description of his book on McFarland's website. I definitely understand your difficulty with print sources; I often use a magnifying glass myself. |
|
May-04-16
| | Phony Benoni: <luftforlife> I should mention that I'm not sure of the coverage in the 2012 edition, just making judgment based on earlier editions. By the way, in my opinion it's a "Phony Benoni" only if White doesn't answer ...c5 by advancing with d5. But opening nomenclature is one of those things like combinations or sacrifices or zugzwang. Everybody knows one when they see it, but nobody can agree on the definition. |
|
| May-05-16 | | luftforlife: <perfidious>: I wish not to intrude, but do you have any connection to, or might you have any information about, the chess competitor Stephen J. Shaw, perhaps originally from Albany, who was active over-the-board in the 1940s, and who later moved to Florida and remained active in correspondence play? Thanks. |
|
May-05-16
| | Phony Benoni: <luftforlife> I've left a comment on the Stephen Shaw page. I'm sure we can identify the two Shaws as the same person, and think we should go with "Steven J Shaw". |
|
| May-05-16 | | luftforlife: <Phony Benoni>: I'm with you. Sounds good. I replied further under your comment on the Stephen Shaw page. |
|
May-05-16
 | | Penguincw: Hey, check out NYM-SD. Derek Norris just homered to make it 4-0 Padres... |
|
May-05-16
| | WannaBe: <Penguincw> beat me to it, NYM have only a walk in the game... |
|
May-06-16
| | WannaBe: Mets got a hit... |
|
May-06-16
| | WannaBe: Top 5, one out, Colorado have already scored 8 runs, bases loaded... Can them Giants give up another 12 runs in one inning? When was the last time a team gives up double-digit runs in one inning in one season? |
|
May-06-16
| | WannaBe: Oh, gracious, Rockies scored 11 runs, man on third, one out... 15-3 Top 5th, at San Francisco. |
|
May-06-16
| | Penguincw: Yes! If the Giants lose, they'll be tied with the Dodgers for first in the NL West. But hmph, wanted the Padres to get a no-hitter. They're still the only team without one. They were also the last MLB team to get a player to hit a cycle, 'til last year, when Kemp hit one. |
|
May-06-16
| | WannaBe: Rockies scored 13 runs in the top of the fifth!! Giants give up two double-digit run innings within a week's time... |
|
| May-06-16 | | Jim Bartle: A few years ago I posted an all-time SF Giants team. At that time they were strong at every postion except catcher and shortstop. Seems they have filled those holes: Bobby Bonds RF
Jeff Kent 2B
Willie Mays CF
Barry Bonds LF
Willie McCovey 1B
Matt Williams 3B
Buster Posey C
Brandon Crawford SS
The rotation is still "unsettled" after Marichal and Perry. Reuschel, Dravecky, Sanford, O'Dell and others were good but not long enough. Cain has been good but has a losing record. Lincecum had four excellent years then collapsed. Bumgarner has had five straight good years, that might be enough. Still looking for a fourth. |
|
May-06-16
| | Phony Benoni: Too bad there's no DH, or that Cepeda couldn't pitch. |
|
| May-06-16 | | Jim Bartle: Right. That was the big question for years, to play Cepeda or McCovey. Neither was good enough really in leftfield, though McCovey played most of the time there in 63 and 64. McCovey was on the bench for the 1962 pennant-winning team, still had 20 home runs and 50 RBIs with only 230 ABs. You can't really triple that to get full year stats, though, as he almost never batted against lefthanders. (Now if they'd faced Drysdale every day...) Cepeda was injured most of 1965 and McCovey played great. So the Giants traded Cepeda to St. Louis for the immortal Ray Sadecki, and Cepeda was never heard from again. |
|
May-06-16
| | WannaBe: Useless Information Department:
<Baseball Tonight
@BBTN
The two Chicago teams are first to reach 20 wins in their respective leagues for 1st time since 1917> So, it took 99 years... |
|
May-07-16
| | Phony Benoni: Here you go:
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/...
The funny thing is that the White Sox weren't even in first place! |
|
| May-07-16 | | Jim Bartle: On that day the White Sox had played seven more games than the Yankees or Boston, the teams ahead of them. That can't happen very often. |
|
| May-07-16 | | Jim Bartle: ESPN Headline: <DARWIN BARNEY TESTS YASIEL PUIG'S ARM Not a good idea.>
Why are players ridiculed for trying to take a base on a hit and getting thrown out, while players getting thrown out stealing are not? On this play the runner had a great chance to make it to second, but Puig's throw was from 150 feet was right on the bag, into the glove. If it had been three feet higher (still a great throw) he would have been safe. http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/114932... But "oooooh, bad idea to challenge Puig."
It sure seems as if the runner's chance to make second there was a heck of a lot better than any runner's chance to steal second. Yet getting caught stealing is never criticized as "bad idea." |
|
May-07-16
 | | keypusher: <Jim Bartle>
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the batter had already rounded first and committed to going for second when the ball caromed off the wall and rolled smoothly to Puig's bare hand, otherwise even he would have had no chance to make the throw. Just really bad luck from the batter's perspective. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 784 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
