My Game Against Leon Stolzenberg

[samsloan]

Leon Stolzenberg (18 October 1895–25 October 1974) was one Americas
leading chess players in the 1920s. He won the US Open Championship in
1926 and 1928.

Later he gave up over-the-board chess and became a postal player
winning the Golden Knights Championship several times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Stolzenberg

I played him in the 1961 Golden Knights. I was 16 years old and not
very good then, a Class B player trying to promote to Class A.

I just found the postcards to the game and I decided to post the game
here for its possible historical interest even though the game is not
very good. Stolzenberg went on to win the 1961 Golden Knights, winning
all 18 of his games. The main reason I am posting it here is I can
only find one game by Stolzenberg in the databases. That was a loss in
1924 to Carlos Torre.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1144012

My game with Stolzenberg started on July 4, 1961 and ended on January
10, 1962

[Event "Golden Knights"]
[Site "Chess Review Postal Chess"]
[Date "1961.07.04"]
[Round "Preliminaries"]
[White "Stolzenberg, Leon"]
[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A28"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[Warning "HCS"]

1.Nf3 Nc6 2.d3 e5 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 Ng4
7.O-O Nd4 8.Nxd4 Nxf2 9.Rxf2 Bxd4 10.Qe1 Qh4 11.Nd5 Bxf2+
12.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 13.Kxf2 O-O 14.Nxc7 Rb8 15.Nb5 Rd8 16.Nxa7 h6
17.Nxc8 Rdxc8 18.a4 Ra8 19.b4 Kh7 20.Be3 Rcb8 21.d4 f6
22.d5 b6 23.c5 dxc5 24.bxc5 bxc5 25.Bxc5 g6 26.d6 f5
27.d7 Kg8 28.Bc4+ Kg7 29.Bd5 Rb2+ 30.Kf1 Rd8 31.Bc6 fxe4
32.Be7 Rf8+ 33.Bxf8+ 1-0

Stolzenberg and many other leading postal players opened with 1. Nf3.
The reason is it is a perfectly good move yet it gets the opponent out
of the book. There is very little book on 1. Nf3.

One error by Stolzenberg marred the game. He was White and his first
postcard said 1. Nf3, if any, 2. d3.

I replied 1. Nf3 Nc6 2. d3 e5

He apparently wrote down 1. Nf3 d6 2. d3 e5. Then, when I sent him
5. ... d6 he replied that I had already played that move.

Apparently he must have also written 4. ... Bf5 when I had actually
sent him 4. ... Bc5

He was 66 years old and showing his age. This mix-up did not stop him
from winning the tournament however.

It is hard to tell how his writing down the wrong moves affected his
play. However, his move 5. e4 was a blunder. All I had to do was play
5. ... Ng4 and I would have won a pawn with a winning advantage.

I still had a good game. I made a stupid bishop and knight vs. rook
and pawn sacrifice, a sacrifice that is almost always bad.

The game was even and possibly drawish until I gave him two pawns for
nothing on move 13. Probably the reason I did not play 13. ... Kd8 is
I feared 14. Bg5+ f6 15. Nxf6 gxf6 15. Bxf6 winning an exchange and
two pawns. However, that does not work because of 15 ... h6 16. Bh4 g5
17. Bg3 Rf8 winning a knight.

So, I could have drawn Stolzenberg or possibly even beaten him thereby
stopping his march to the Golden Knights Championship with a score of
18-0.

On move 23 I suddenly realized that I was playing against a famous old-
time player. (I had not known who my opponent was up until that point.
He wrote back, "Yes. I have been playing this game for years."

I should have resigned a lot sooner than I actually did.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
Leon Stolzenberg (18 October 1895–25 October 1974) was one Americas
leading chess players in the 1920s. He won the US Open Championship in
1926 and 1928.

It would be more accurate to say he won the Western Chess
Association tournament for those years. I'm not sure how it was
organized in 1926 or 1928, but in 1924 it was a closed invitational
round-robin, not an open Swiss-system tournament.

Post by samsloan
Later he gave up over-the-board chess and became a postal player
winning the Golden Knights Championship several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Stolzenberg
I played him in the 1961 Golden Knights. I was 16 years old and not
very good then, a Class B player trying to promote to Class A.
Stolzenberg went on to win the 1961 Golden Knights, winning
all 18 of his games.

This source indicates that Stolzenberg did not win the /1961/ Golden
Knights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Knights_(chess)

He won the Golden Knights in 1947-48, 1950, and 1960, according to
that article.

Post by samsloan
The main reason I am posting it here is I can
only find one game by Stolzenberg in the databases. That was a loss in
1924 to Carlos Torre.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1144012

I added a bit more about Stolzenberg in the introduction to that
game in "Life and Games of Carlos Torre" by Gabriel Velasco.
Stolzenberg claimed to have played several blindfold games with
Alekhine in 1916 when AAA was in a military hospital recovering from
shell-shock. He claimed to have witnessed the famous game Alekhine-
Feldt, adding that "Feldt" was really a Dr. Martin Fischer:

[Event "Odessa sim"]
[Site "Odessa"]
[Date "1916.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Black "Feldt"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C11"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[EventDate "1916.??.??"]
[EventType "simul"]
[EventRounds "1"]
[EventCountry "UKR"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. exd5 Nxd5 5. Ne4 f5 6. Ng5 Be7 7. N5f3
c6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Ngf3 b6 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. O-O Re8 12. c4 Nf6 13. Bf4
Nbd7 14. Qe2 c5 15. Nf7 Kxf7 16. Qxe6+ Kg6 17. g4 Be4 18. Nh4# 1-0

Post by samsloan
Stolzenberg and many other leading postal players opened with 1. Nf3.
The reason is it is a perfectly good move yet it gets the opponent out
of the book. There is very little book on 1. Nf3.

You are badly misinformed on this point, Sam.

Post by samsloan
So, I could have drawn Stolzenberg or possibly even beaten him

And if I were 7' 6" tall, I could have blocked shots by Wilt
Chamberlain and Bill Russell.

[The Historian]

Post by samsloan
Leon Stolzenberg (18 October 1895–25 October 1974) was one Americas
leading chess players in the 1920s. He won the US Open Championship in
1926 and 1928.

  It would be more accurate to say he won the Western Chess
Association tournament for those years. I'm not sure how it was
organized in 1926 or 1928, but in 1924 it was a closed invitational
round-robin, not an open Swiss-system tournament.

Post by samsloan
Later he gave up over-the-board chess and became a postal player
winning the Golden Knights Championship several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Stolzenberg
I played him in the 1961 Golden Knights. I was 16 years old and not
very good then, a Class B player trying to promote to Class A.
Stolzenberg went on to win the 1961 Golden Knights, winning
all 18 of his games.

  This source indicates that Stolzenberg did not win the /1961/ Golden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Knights_(chess)
  He won the Golden Knights in 1947-48, 1950, and 1960, according to
that article.

Post by samsloan
The main reason I am posting it here is I can
only find one game by Stolzenberg in the databases. That was a loss in
1924 to Carlos Torre.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1144012

  I added a bit more about Stolzenberg in the introduction to that
game in "Life and Games of Carlos Torre" by Gabriel Velasco.
Stolzenberg claimed to have played several blindfold games with
Alekhine in 1916 when AAA was in a military hospital recovering from
shell-shock. He claimed to have witnessed the famous game Alekhine-
[Event "Odessa sim"]
[Site "Odessa"]
[Date "1916.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Black "Feldt"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C11"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[EventDate "1916.??.??"]
[EventType "simul"]
[EventRounds "1"]
[EventCountry "UKR"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. exd5 Nxd5 5. Ne4 f5 6. Ng5 Be7 7. N5f3
c6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Ngf3 b6 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. O-O Re8 12. c4 Nf6 13. Bf4
Nbd7 14. Qe2 c5 15. Nf7 Kxf7 16. Qxe6+ Kg6 17. g4 Be4 18. Nh4# 1-0

Post by samsloan
Stolzenberg and many other leading postal players opened with 1. Nf3.
The reason is it is a perfectly good move yet it gets the opponent out
of the book. There is very little book on 1. Nf3.

  You are badly misinformed on this point, Sam.

Post by samsloan
So, I could have drawn Stolzenberg or possibly even beaten him

  And if I were 7' 6" tall, I could have blocked shots by Wilt
Chamberlain and Bill Russell.

This might be of interest to some readers:

http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050228.htm

[None]

http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050228.htm-

Whatever became of William Raudenbush? He was the great God of the
club in the 70s and 80s. Likewise Art Price who played then and thru
ca. 2001.

[The Historian]

Post by None

http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050228.htm-

Whatever became of William Raudenbush? He was the great God of the
club in the 70s and 80s. Likewise Art Price who played then and thru
ca. 2001.

When I spoke with Bill in the early part of the decade, he said he'd
retired from chess. He also gave up correspondence play because he
thought there was rampant use of chess engines.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by The Historian
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050228.htm

Very good article, Neil. Thank you.

[sd]

Post by The Historian
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050228.htm

Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.

SBD

[raylopez99]

Post by sd
Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.

And what would that importance be? Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20,
1822 – January 6, 1884)'s papers were ignored, setting back genetics
two generations, and Josiah Willard Gibbs's phase rule was published
in an obscure American journal in the 1870s and misunderstood, setting
back material science by a generation; those are real setbacks. But
when a chess problemists papers are lost, does anybody get adversely
affected? Probably not.

RL

[jkh001]

Post by sd
Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.

And what would that importance be?  Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20,
1822 – January 6, 1884)'s papers were ignored, setting back genetics
two generations, and Josiah Willard Gibbs's phase rule was published
in an obscure American journal in the 1870s and misunderstood, setting
back material science by a generation; those are real setbacks.  But
when a chess problemists papers are lost, does anybody get adversely
affected?  Probably not.
RL

Problems and studies are artistic creations. Their preservation is
worthwhile a priori. Clearly you are not interested in them, but
that's a statement about you, not about them. I find the art of Dali
and the poetry of Angelou boring or distasteful, but that's hardly an
argument for discarding their works.

[raylopez99]

Post by jkh001
Problems and studies are artistic creations. Their preservation is
worthwhile a priori. Clearly you are not interested in them, but
that's a statement about you, not about them. I find the art of Dali
and the poetry of Angelou boring or distasteful, but that's hardly an
argument for discarding their works.

Well that's all in the eye of the beholder. You think OTB play is a
work of art? Then so is blitz. So is postal. So is a computer
match.

If you like collecting such works, feel free, but it's more art than
science.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by sd
Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.

And what would that importance be?  ...
when a chess problemists papers are lost, does anybody get adversely
affected?  Probably not.

One could just as easily say nobody would have been adversely
affected had all of Van Gogh's paintings been lost. Or if none of
Sophocles' plays had survived, the only result would be that we'd have
a different name for the Oedipus complex.

One notes that while Ray is casually dismissing the loss of chess
problemists' artistry, he seems quite intent on preserving his own
unremarkable games here.

[j***@vanderbilt.edu]

Post by sd
Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.

And what would that importance be?  ...
when a chess problemists papers are lost, does anybody get adversely
affected?  Probably not.

  One could just as easily say nobody would have been adversely
affected had all of Van Gogh's paintings been lost. Or if none of
Sophocles' plays had survived, the only result would be that we'd have
a different name for the Oedipus complex.
  One notes that while Ray is casually dismissing the loss of chess
problemists' artistry, he seems quite intent on preserving his own
unremarkable games here.

I now believe that one of the special characteristics of strong chess
players which makes them interesting to study is an unusually large
desire to make themselves immortal. This is less obvious when you
study the great masters; they have already made themselves immortal
through chess. When you study strong amateur players, it seems to me
that an unusually large number have tried to implement grand plans
which would live far beyond them. Unlike Greek tragedies, their hubris
does not kill them, which makes life more interesting than fiction; we
get to see how they succeed, fail, or muddle through, and whether this
affects the rest of their lives. These quests for immortality seem to
be part of the families of strong players, as well as the players
themselves.

I am currently writing an article on Joseph D Redding, a strong San
Francisco player who (like Isaac Trabue in a previous article) tried
to change the ecology of the United States, as well as other more
standard and more successful attempts to make a name for himself.

Jerry Spinrad

[raylopez99]

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
I am currently writing an article on Joseph D Redding, a strong San
Francisco player who (like Isaac Trabue in a previous article) tried
to change the ecology of the United States, as well as other more
standard and more successful attempts to make a name for himself.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~npmelton/sfbred2.htm

will help your research on J.D. Redding. Note his attempts at
stocking rivers with fish was a standard 19th century preoccupation,
since many dams earlier in that century had depleted salmon from
spawning in many rivers. Only now, in fact in the last 15 years, have
these worthless dams (constructed before the age of steam in some
cases) being torn down and fish returning, including on the east coast
with shad and salmon.

And you want to smear his good name? Shame on you if so.

RL

[j***@vanderbilt.edu]

Post by raylopez99

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
I am currently writing an article on Joseph D Redding, a strong San
Francisco player who (like Isaac Trabue in a previous article) tried
to change the ecology of the United States, as well as other more
standard and more successful attempts to make a name for himself.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~npmelton/sfbred2.htm
will help your research on J.D. Redding.  Note his attempts at
stocking rivers with fish was a standard 19th century preoccupation,
since many dams earlier in that century had depleted salmon from
spawning in many rivers.  Only now, in fact in the last 15 years, have
these worthless dams (constructed before the age of steam in some
cases) being torn down and fish returning, including on the east coast
with shad and salmon.
And you want to smear his good name?  Shame on you if so.
RL

His piscatorial ambitions were, in fact, much grander than stocking
rivers with fish as given in the link above. I have no intention of
smearing his good name, but instead to celebrate the interesting life
of a chess player. This is a man who had major achievements in law,
music, chess, and other areas; a true American of the type who so
objected to waiting on a minor king that he threw the elevator man out
of the elevator and operated it himself so he would not have to wait;
and he moved heaven and Earth against enormous obstacles to bring
lobsters to California. Strangely, he is now mostly remembered for a
ceremony he devised called The Cremation of Care, which some
conspiracy theorists associate with the evils of the New World Order.
A life well worthy of celebration! And yes, I believe he clearly
craved immortality, and worked quite hard to achieve it; he would be
happy to know there was an article about him.

Jerry Spinrad

[raylopez99]

  One could just as easily say nobody would have been adversely
affected had all of Van Gogh's paintings been lost. Or if none of
Sophocles' plays had survived, the only result would be that we'd have
a different name for the Oedipus complex.
  One notes that while Ray is casually dismissing the loss of chess
problemists' artistry, he seems quite intent on preserving his own
unremarkable games here.

You think this game is "unremarkable"? White goes from plus 2.5 pawns
to even in one or two non-obvious, natural moves--premature attack.

A masterpiece of defense, this one is:

[Event "Rated game, 5m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2010.06.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Meise"]
[Black "Ray"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D05"]
[WhiteElo "1591"]
[BlackElo "1630"]
[PlyCount "114"]
[EventDate "2010.06.21"]
[TimeControl "300"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 Be7 5. Nbd2 O-O 6. O-O Nbd7 7. b3
c6 8. Bb2
Qc7 9. c4 dxc4 10. Nxc4 Nb6 11. Rc1 Nxc4 12. bxc4 Qa5 13. Qc2 g6 14.
h4 Re8 15.
e4 Bf8 16. e5 Nd7 17. h5 Bg7 18. Ng5 Qd8 19. Nxf7 Kxf7 20. hxg6+ Kg8
21. gxh7+
Kh8 22. f4 Nf8 23. f5 exf5 24. Bxf5 Bxf5 25. Qxf5 Nxh7 26. Rf3 Rf8 27.
Qh5 Rxf3
28. gxf3 Qg5+ 29. Qxg5 Nxg5 30. Kg2 Rf8 31. Rf1 Kg8 32. d5 cxd5 33.
cxd5 Nf7
34. f4 Rd8 35. d6 Nxd6 36. Rd1 Nf7 37. Rxd8+ Nxd8 38. Kf3 Kf7 39. Ke4
Nc6 40.
f5 Ke8 41. f6 Bh6 42. e6 Bg5 43. Kf5 Bh4 44. Kg6 Bxf6 45. Kxf6 Nd8 46.
Be5 Nc6
47. Bd6 a6 48. a4 Nd4 49. Ke5 Nc6+ 50. Kd5 Nd8 51. Ke5 Nc6+ 52. Kd5
Nd8 53. e7
Nc6 54. Ke6 Nd4+ 55. Kd5 Nc6 56. Ke6 Nd4+ 57. Kd5 Nc6 1/2-1/2

[Taylor Kingston]

  One could just as easily say nobody would have been adversely
affected had all of Van Gogh's paintings been lost. Or if none of
Sophocles' plays had survived, the only result would be that we'd have
a different name for the Oedipus complex.
  One notes that while Ray is casually dismissing the loss of chess
problemists' artistry, he seems quite intent on preserving his own
unremarkable games here.

You think this game is "unremarkable"?  White goes from plus 2.5 pawns
to even in one or two non-obvious, natural moves--premature attack.

Come on, Ray. You were busted, and he let you off the hook (23.f5?
instead of 23.Rf3!). Being partial to the Colle-Zukertort myself, I
wish all my opponents played against it as badly as you did. Oh, and
then there was 35.d6? instead of 35.Rd1. This was like a marksmanship
contest between blind men.
Ray Lopez, a legend in his own mind.

[None]

  Ray Lopez, a legend in his own mind.

<chuckle>

[The Master]

Post by sd
Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.

And what would that importance be?  Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20,
1822 – January 6, 1884)'s papers were ignored, setting back genetics
two generations, and Josiah Willard Gibbs's phase rule was published
in an obscure American journal in the 1870s and misunderstood, setting
back material science by a generation; those are real setbacks.  But
when a chess problemists papers are lost, does anybody get adversely
affected?  Probably not.

Good point, Phil. But of course you knew that by 'important' SD
did not
mean earth-shattering (as when Prometheus armed humans with fire) but
important in the sense that a few problemists would be deprived of
some
antequarian curiosities.

Say, when are you going to stop boring us with your pityful blitz
games
and make an attempt to play more serious chess? I'm not talking
world
championship here but merely a few OTB games and preferably at slower
time controls. They hold tournaments in Vermont regularly and I
hear
there is not even a single 2300+ player there to worry about and very
few
Experts, if any.

I'm not sure why the output of Dali seems unappreciated here. All
you
need to do is set it side-by-side with some of the other 'creations'
which
are for some reason called modern 'art' and anyone can see how they
are superior... sort of. It's the same way with Phil Innes' chess
games
set alongside of Sanny's: anyone can see which is superior (though
they
still pale in comparison to my games).

[raylopez99]

  Say, when are you going to stop boring us with your pityful blitz
games
and make an attempt to play more serious chess?  

Really? You think that Phil Innes, a candidate master, or American New
Master, or some such title, plays blitz as I have posted here? When
TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would?

Well, that means either:

(1) my blitz chess games are not so bad after all, since you think
Phil Innes would have played them, or,

(2) you are not a good judge of what kind of blitz games somebody as
highly rated as Phil Innes would play, or,

(3) Phil Innes sucks at blitz.

I prefer to think it's (1) above.

Ray ("Phil") Lopez ("Innes")

[Mark Houlsby]

Post by raylopez99

  Say, when are you going to stop boring us with your pityful blitz
games
and make an attempt to play more serious chess?  

Really? You think that Phil Innes, a candidate master, or American New
Master, or some such title, plays blitz as I have posted here?

Nobody else plays blitz the way you play blitz, Ray. Nobody else plays
blitz the way Phil plays blitz, either, for that matter....

Post by raylopez99
 When
TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would?

I'm sorry... "When TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play
the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would...." what?

You might as well state something like: "When the moon is full, I
like.".

Now, attempting to deconstruct your near-gibberish, I presume that
you're
objecting to Mr. Kingston's critique (to you, he's definitely "Mr.
Kingston") on the
grounds that you assumed (evidently erroneously) that he'd used Rybka
to find the
defects in your play (and your opponent's play).

In fact, he noted that *he plays the Colle-Zukertort* and added that
if his opponents played
as badly as your opponent did, he'd win more often.

Seems you had difficulty in understanding that. Seems you have
difficulty in understanding
anything....

Post by raylopez99
(1) my blitz chess games are not so bad after all, since you think
Phil Innes would have played them, or,

No, playing as badly as Phil does is no reason to celebrate.

Equally, playing as badly as I do is no reason to celebrate, either.

Post by raylopez99
(2) you are not a good judge of what kind of blitz games somebody as
highly rated as Phil Innes would play, or,

Unlike you, Mr. Kingston readily acknowledges his shortcomings, yet it
seems
that notwithstanding those limitations he was able to understand the
game better
than you did. Not that that's saying much, I think he might agree....

Post by raylopez99
(3) Phil Innes sucks at blitz.

That's certainly true.

Post by raylopez99
I prefer to think it's (1) above.

Evidently, you prefer to think a lot of things which are demonstrably
complete nonsense.

Post by raylopez99
Ray ("Phil") Lopez ("Innes")

Mark ("Mark") Houlsby ("Houlsby")

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by Mark Houlsby

Post by raylopez99
 When
TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would?

I'm sorry... "When TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play
the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would...." what?

Mark, what Ray would mean, *IF* he were honest, is this:

I, Ray Lopez, often post my blitz games here, and claim that they
are "mistake-free" on my part. I even go so far as to claim I play
chess as well as Tal, Capablanca, and Kasparov. Taylor Kingston, party-
pooper that he is, often finds that I have actually made significant
mistakes in these games. I in turn claim that:

(A) These are errors, not mistakes. This is a meaningless
distinction without a difference, but I say it anyway.
(B) These mistakes don't count because I won the game anyway, and
therefore my bad moves were actually good. This of course is patent
nonsense, but again, I say it anyway.
(C) OK, they were bad moves, but because they were blitz games I
claim a special privilege that allows me to disregard them, even
though I allow no one else that privilege.
(D) The fact that many of my moves are unsound actually proves that
I do play like Tal, because he too sometimes made unsound moves.
(E) F--- it! Everything I do is perfect, because I say it is! And
everyone else is wrong, because I say they are! So there!

Post by Mark Houlsby
Now, attempting to deconstruct your near-gibberish, I presume that
you're
objecting to Mr. Kingston's critique (to you, he's definitely "Mr.
Kingston") on the
grounds that you assumed (evidently erroneously) that he'd used Rybka
to find the
defects in your play (and your opponent's play).

Mark, just FYI, I do use Rybka 3.1 and Fritz8.

Post by Mark Houlsby
Evidently, you prefer to think a lot of things which are demonstrably
complete nonsense.

Yes, that is typical of our Ray.

[Mark Houlsby]

Post by Mark Houlsby

Post by raylopez99
 When
TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would?

I'm sorry... "When TK rips my blitz to shreds because I did not play
the same move
somebody in correspondence chess using Rybka would...." what?

  I, Ray Lopez, often post my blitz games here, and claim that they
are "mistake-free" on my part. I even go so far as to claim I play
chess as well as Tal, Capablanca, and Kasparov. Taylor Kingston, party-
pooper that he is, often finds that I have actually made significant
  (A) These are errors, not mistakes. This is a meaningless
distinction without a difference, but I say it anyway.
  (B) These mistakes don't count because I won the game anyway, and
therefore my bad moves were actually good. This of course is patent
nonsense, but again, I say it anyway.
  (C) OK, they were bad moves, but because they were blitz games I
claim a special privilege that allows me to disregard them, even
though I allow no one else that privilege.
  (D) The fact that many of my moves are unsound actually proves that
I do play like Tal, because he too sometimes made unsound moves.
  (E) F--- it! Everything I do is perfect, because I say it is! And
everyone else is wrong, because I say they are! So there!

Post by Mark Houlsby
Now, attempting to deconstruct your near-gibberish, I presume that
you're
objecting to Mr. Kingston's critique (to you, he's definitely "Mr.
Kingston") on the
grounds that you assumed (evidently erroneously) that he'd used Rybka
to find the
defects in your play (and your opponent's play).

  Mark, just FYI, I do use Rybka 3.1 and Fritz8.

Oh, ok... thanks for the heads-up :-)

Post by Mark Houlsby
Evidently, you prefer to think a lot of things which are demonstrably
complete nonsense.

  Yes, that is typical of our Ray.

Ain't it, though? Let me hear you say: "Sheesh!"....

[The Historian]

Post by sd

Post by The Historian
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050228.htm

Interesting, thanks Neil. It should be noted that there have been
chess problemists with a similar history, in at least one case the
family did not not know how important the preservation of the
individual's papers would have been and simply threw them away.
SBD

Music of Mahler, Bruckner, and Mozart all suffered the same fate. In
the case of Bruckner, the final movement of the Ninth symphony was
complete in manuscript, but the dying composer's visitors took pages
from it as keepsake. A Mozart work for horn and orchestra was cut up
for use in greeting cards.

[raylopez99]

Post by samsloan
My game with Stolzenberg started on July 4, 1961 and ended on January
10, 1962
13.Kxf2 O-O ??

Fritz says this lost the game: castling! With queens off the boards,
no need to castle--better to protect the c7 square from the N.

Post by samsloan
I should have resigned a lot sooner than I actually did.

Yes, on move 13.

RL

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan
My game with Stolzenberg started on July 4, 1961 and ended on January
10, 1962
 13.Kxf2 O-O ??

Fritz says this lost the game: castling!  With queens off the boards,
no need to castle--better to protect the c7 square from the N.

Post by samsloan
I should have resigned a lot sooner than I actually did.

Yes, on move 13.
RL

Yes. That is what I said in my notes. I lost the game on move 13.

I should have played simply 13. ... Kd8, protecting the pawn. My game
is OK then.

As long as you have Fritz running, what else does it say?

Sam Sloan