Discussion:
Self-contradictory use of disqualification concept.
Add Reply
Paul Epstein
2021-04-03 14:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-euro-club-cup-after-eight-year-unbeaten-run :
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."

Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.

Thank you.

Paul Epstein
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-03 15:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.
I agree.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-04-03 16:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 07:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Paul Epstein
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.
Thank you.
Paul Epstein
Agreed. It is possible that the author was not using "placed" in the
normal sense in the context of a competition. I assume that "placed
last" refers to the results list in which the winner is top of the list,
then second, third, etc, with disqualified competitors put (placed) at
the bottom of the list and marked as disqualified.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
2021-04-03 16:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 17:03:23 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 07:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Paul Epstein
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.
Thank you.
Paul Epstein
Agreed. It is possible that the author was not using "placed" in the
normal sense in the context of a competition. I assume that "placed
last" refers to the results list in which the winner is top of the list,
then second, third, etc, with disqualified competitors put (placed) at
the bottom of the list and marked as disqualified.
"Placed" can mean "placed on the list" when a subsequent list of
entries is published. When the list includes all those who entered,
then a disqualified entrant is placed last on the list.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Bebercito
2021-04-03 17:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.
Nothing abnormal, as, although disqualified, the player did enter the
tournament, and that has to be accounted for. Besides, a tournament
always has a fixed number of participants, which must be reflected in
the final standings. Incidentally, you seem to be using “was placed
last” and “placed last” interchangeably, but they don’t mean quite the
same, as the latter would suggest that the player competed normally,
which she didn't. In the article, though "placed last" can grammatically
be construed as a past simple or a past participle (with the "was"
before "disqualified" elliptically repeated), it most likely means the
latter.

Other sports seem to behave similarly. For instance, in tennis, Djokovic
was disqualified in a match against Carreno Busta in the US Open 2020,
and that match is officially listed as a Djokovic loss by the ATP.
Post by Paul Epstein
Thank you.
Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-03 17:48:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.
Nothing abnormal, as, although disqualified, the player did enter the
tournament, and that has to be accounted for. Besides, a tournament
always has a fixed number of participants,
If you're talking about chess, that depends on what you mean by "a fixed
number of participants." Once it starts, of course the number is fixed.
But many tournaments don't have a fixed number in advance. The number of
participants depends on how many people enter. There may be a maximum
number of entries permitted, but the actual number isn't fixed.
--
Ken
Peter Moylan
2021-04-04 00:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Bebercito
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-euro-club-cup-after-eight-year-unbeaten-run
: "The first Fide World Universities Championship played online
on the Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women’s
Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5, IM Iulija Osmak of
Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1
abstention) of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last." Surely,
when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as
non-particpants. I would find a rule that awarded last place as a
penalty for cheating to be bizarre as disqualification is the
standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place
at all.
Nothing abnormal, as, although disqualified, the player did enter
the tournament, and that has to be accounted for. Besides, a
tournament always has a fixed number of participants,
If you're talking about chess, that depends on what you mean by "a
fixed number of participants." Once it starts, of course the number
is fixed. But many tournaments don't have a fixed number in advance.
The number of participants depends on how many people enter. There
may be a maximum number of entries permitted, but the actual number
isn't fixed.
Whether it's chess or anything else, that detail is irrelevant to the
present case. The report strongly suggests that Osmak was disqualified
/after/ having competed.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 15:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Bebercito
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-euro-club-cup-after-eight-year-unbeaten-run
: "The first Fide World Universities Championship played online
on the Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women’s
Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5, IM Iulija Osmak of
Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1
abstention) of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last." Surely,
when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as
non-particpants. I would find a rule that awarded last place as a
penalty for cheating to be bizarre as disqualification is the
standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place
at all.
Nothing abnormal, as, although disqualified, the player did enter
the tournament, and that has to be accounted for. Besides, a
tournament always has a fixed number of participants,
If you're talking about chess, that depends on what you mean by "a
fixed number of participants." Once it starts, of course the number
is fixed. But many tournaments don't have a fixed number in advance.
The number of participants depends on how many people enter. There
may be a maximum number of entries permitted, but the actual number
isn't fixed.
Whether it's chess or anything else, that detail is irrelevant to the
present case. The report strongly suggests that Osmak was disqualified
/after/ having competed.
What the report said is irrelevant, I responded to the sentence
"Besides, a tournament always has a fixed number of participants." That
sentence is incorrect and I pointed out why.
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-04 08:41:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 6:24:33 PM UTC+1, Bebercito wrote:
...
Post by Bebercito
In the article, though "placed last" can grammatically
be construed as a past simple or a past participle (with the "was"
before "disqualified" elliptically repeated), it most likely means the
latter.
...
Ah, thanks, I see now. That gets to the nub of my misreading.
I read "placed last" as meaning "she placed last" but the author intended
"was placed last" which means (as others in the thread have pointed out)
that her finalised results were at the bottom of the results table.

Paul Epstein
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-03 20:04:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-eu
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.

In the case presumed cheating by Osmak
simply disqualifying her doesn't work,
for you have to determine the effects on the other players.
As it went, Osmak was given a zero for all her games.
Those she had won from received 1/2 a point
instead of the zero they had.

Then the new ranking had to be computed from the modified matrix,
(which came out to be what it already was,
except for Osman moving from top to bottom)

Jan
Ken Blake
2021-04-03 21:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-eu
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
That depends on what kind of a tournament it is. If it is a round-robin
tournament, yes that's correct. But not all tournaments are round-robin.
If it's a Swiss System tournament, for example, no player plays all the
others (if you don't know what Swiss System and Round-Robin tournaments
are, ask, and I'll explain).

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the majority of chess tournaments
are Swiss System. I know that I've played in many more Swiss System
tournaments than round-robins.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.
There used to be several possible tie-breaking systems, and not all
tournaments did it the same way. It's possible that it's now been
standardized and all tournaments now do it the same way; I don't know.

And in some tournaments, a tie-breaking system is not used to determine
the winner. Instead a playoff match between the tied top scorers is played.
--
Ken
Tony Cooper
2021-04-03 22:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-eu
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
That depends on what kind of a tournament it is. If it is a round-robin
tournament, yes that's correct. But not all tournaments are round-robin.
If it's a Swiss System tournament, for example, no player plays all the
others (if you don't know what Swiss System and Round-Robin tournaments
are, ask, and I'll explain).
I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the majority of chess tournaments
are Swiss System. I know that I've played in many more Swiss System
tournaments than round-robins.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.
There used to be several possible tie-breaking systems, and not all
tournaments did it the same way. It's possible that it's now been
standardized and all tournaments now do it the same way; I don't know.
And in some tournaments, a tie-breaking system is not used to determine
the winner. Instead a playoff match between the tied top scorers is played.
One such tie-breaking system:


--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Paul Epstein
2021-04-03 23:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 10:56:24 PM UTC+1, Ken Blake wrote:
....
Post by Ken Blake
That depends on what kind of a tournament it is. If it is a round-robin
tournament, yes that's correct. But not all tournaments are round-robin.
If it's a Swiss System tournament, for example, no player plays all the
others (if you don't know what Swiss System and Round-Robin tournaments
are, ask, and I'll explain).
I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the majority of chess tournaments
are Swiss System. I know that I've played in many more Swiss System
tournaments than round-robins.
...
This is strongly correlated with the level.
I think the world's absolute top players play far more round-robin
tournaments than Swiss tournaments.
Swiss is the standard for lower-level events.
Of course, most people aren't super-grandmasters so Swiss events will
be more common overall.
There was a case where an event was intended to be a Swiss but became
all-play-all (which I think is the same as round-robin) because there were too
few competitors.

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 00:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
....
Post by Ken Blake
That depends on what kind of a tournament it is. If it is a round-robin
tournament, yes that's correct. But not all tournaments are round-robin.
If it's a Swiss System tournament, for example, no player plays all the
others (if you don't know what Swiss System and Round-Robin tournaments
are, ask, and I'll explain).
I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the majority of chess tournaments
are Swiss System. I know that I've played in many more Swiss System
tournaments than round-robins.
...
This is strongly correlated with the level.
I think the world's absolute top players play far more round-robin
tournaments than Swiss tournaments.
Yes. The world's top players probably never enter Swiss tournaments. I
was talking about tournaments in general, not those of the world's top
players.
Post by Paul Epstein
Swiss is the standard for lower-level events.
Yes, because there are usually many more entrants.
Post by Paul Epstein
Of course, most people aren't super-grandmasters so Swiss events will
be more common overall.
Yes. Even at my best, many year ago, I was far from a super-grandmaster.
As I said, "I've played in many more Swiss System tournaments than
round-robins." Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-04 08:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 1:23:21 AM UTC+1, Ken Blake wrote:
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
I'd be interested to hear more details, for example:
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?

2) What was your score, and what was your age and the age ceiling?

Paul Epstein
Paul Epstein
2021-04-04 08:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
2) What was your score, and what was your age and the age ceiling?
Paul Epstein
Oh, wow! I just googled.
You actually played Fischer!
Well done for beating him (joke).

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 16:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
2) What was your score, and what was your age and the age ceiling?
Paul Epstein
Oh, wow! I just googled.
You actually played Fischer!
Well done for beating him (joke).
You saw my resignation where I missed h4 and didn't need to resign. That
position is indelibly engraved on my mind.
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-04 17:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
2) What was your score, and what was your age and the age ceiling?
Paul Epstein
Oh, wow! I just googled.
You actually played Fischer!
Well done for beating him (joke).
You saw my resignation where I missed h4 and didn't need to resign. That
position is indelibly engraved on my mind.
--
Ken
I also totally missed h4 -- it never occurred to me to check that the position was lost.
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.

The final position (assuming you play h4 instead of resign) doesn't look "almost-equal" to me at all.
His knight at g4 can not now be easily challenged. If you try to challenge it with your bishop, your
pawn weakness at b3 looms large. The final position looks to me something like: Black wins 60%, draw 30%,
White wins 10%.

However, I'm not a strong player (strength approx 1700 USCF only) so I don't trust my thoughts.
Even if I'm right, anything could have happened if the players are below 2300.

Paul Epstein
Bebercito
2021-04-04 18:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
2) What was your score, and what was your age and the age ceiling?
Paul Epstein
Oh, wow! I just googled.
You actually played Fischer!
Well done for beating him (joke).
You saw my resignation where I missed h4 and didn't need to resign. That
position is indelibly engraved on my mind.
--
Ken
I also totally missed h4 -- it never occurred to me to check that the position was lost.
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
The final position (assuming you play h4 instead of resign) doesn't look "almost-equal" to me at all.
His knight at g4 can not now be easily challenged. If you try to challenge it with your bishop, your
pawn weakness at b3 looms large. The final position looks to me something like: Black wins 60%, draw 30%,
White wins 10%.
However, as I wrote about that game in an old thread ("go to the bathroom"):

"Stockfish 8 values the position as only -0.04 for White, i.e. as virtually equal".
Post by Paul Epstein
However, I'm not a strong player (strength approx 1700 USCF only) so I don't trust my thoughts.
Even if I'm right, anything could have happened if the players are below 2300.
Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 18:13:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
2) What was your score, and what was your age and the age ceiling?
Paul Epstein
Oh, wow! I just googled.
You actually played Fischer!
Well done for beating him (joke).
You saw my resignation where I missed h4 and didn't need to resign. That
position is indelibly engraved on my mind.
--
Ken
I also totally missed h4 --
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
Post by Paul Epstein
it never occurred to me to check that the position was lost.
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
To support the planned g4 and launch a King-side attack.
Post by Paul Epstein
The final position (assuming you play h4 instead of resign) doesn't look "almost-equal" to me at all.
His knight at g4 can not now be easily challenged. If you try to challenge it with your bishop, your
pawn weakness at b3 looms large. The final position looks to me something like: Black wins 60%, draw 30%,
White wins 10%.
He would have had slightly the better position, but I was far from being
lost. I don't how accurate your percentages are, but I would have
settled for them.
Post by Paul Epstein
However, I'm not a strong player (strength approx 1700 USCF only) so I don't trust my thoughts.
Even if I'm right, anything could have happened if the players are below 2300.
I was right around 2000 then. I haven't played or studied for many
years, so I'm sure I'd be much weaker now.
--
Ken
Quinn C
2021-04-05 00:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
--
Just because we had a thing for 150 years, don't presume that
you know me.
-- Darla, Angel S02E09
Chrysi Cat
2021-04-05 00:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
I strongly suspect that Ken brainfarted how many "inverted commas" it
takes to mark an inch vs a foot.

If that's true, than Bobby was a whole four feet tall in '56.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Paul Epstein
2021-04-05 07:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
I strongly suspect that Ken brainfarted how many "inverted commas" it
takes to mark an inch vs a foot.
If that's true, than Bobby was a whole four feet tall in '56.
I agree that Ken meant to refer to Fischer's height, but I read it as a jokey reference to the fact that,
as Fischer was much younger than the other juniors (approx 13 years old), he was conspicuously shorter than the others.
Since he was over six feet tall as an adult, it's highly unlikely that he was an extremely short 13-year-old.
He was probably approx five feet tall which would have been average for his age but very short compared to 18-year-olds.

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-05 16:00:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
I strongly suspect that Ken brainfarted how many "inverted commas" it
takes to mark an inch vs a foot.
If that's true, than Bobby was a whole four feet tall in '56.
I agree that Ken meant to refer to Fischer's height, but I read it as a jokey reference to the fact that,
as Fischer was much younger than the other juniors (approx 13 years old), > he was conspicuously shorter than the others.
Since he was over six feet tall as an adult, it's highly unlikely that he was an extremely short 13-year-old.
He was probably approx five feet tall which would have been average for his age but very short compared to 18-year-olds.
I never knew his height exactly, but the best I can remember is that he
was on the short side then. Closer to 4' than 5'? I think so.
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-05 18:18:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
I strongly suspect that Ken brainfarted how many "inverted commas" it
takes to mark an inch vs a foot.
If that's true, than Bobby was a whole four feet tall in '56.
I agree that Ken meant to refer to Fischer's height, but I read it as a jokey reference to the fact that,
as Fischer was much younger than the other juniors (approx 13 years old), > he was conspicuously shorter than the others.
Since he was over six feet tall as an adult, it's highly unlikely that he was an extremely short 13-year-old.
He was probably approx five feet tall which would have been average for his age but very short compared to 18-year-olds.
I never knew his height exactly, but the best I can remember is that he
was on the short side then. Closer to 4' than 5'? I think so.
He was tall as a 15-year-old, according to journalistic accounts. Maybe not short for his age (at 13) but shorter than his peers simply for being younger?

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-05 19:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
I strongly suspect that Ken brainfarted how many "inverted commas" it
takes to mark an inch vs a foot.
If that's true, than Bobby was a whole four feet tall in '56.
I agree that Ken meant to refer to Fischer's height, but I read it as a jokey reference to the fact that,
as Fischer was much younger than the other juniors (approx 13 years old), > he was conspicuously shorter than the others.
Since he was over six feet tall as an adult, it's highly unlikely that he was an extremely short 13-year-old.
He was probably approx five feet tall which would have been average for his age but very short compared to 18-year-olds.
I never knew his height exactly, but the best I can remember is that he
was on the short side then. Closer to 4' than 5'? I think so.
He was tall as a 15-year-old, according to journalistic accounts. Maybe not short for his age (at 13) but shorter than his peers simply for being younger?
Maybe. Or maybe I'm just misremembering. It was long time ago.
--
Ken
Ken Blake
2021-04-05 15:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
I strongly suspect that Ken brainfarted how many "inverted commas" it
takes to mark an inch vs a foot.
Oops. Yes, of course,
Post by Chrysi Cat
If that's true, than Bobby was a whole four feet tall in '56.
Yes, approximately.
--
Ken
Ken Blake
2021-04-05 15:55:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
--
Ken
Quinn C
2021-04-06 00:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet. I had considered that, but had
forgotten how young he was at the time, so I thought that couldn't be,
either. At that age, every year makes a difference. Although I had
almost my full height at 14, and not because I was particularly tall
then.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Paul Epstein
2021-04-06 16:56:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-06 17:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.

It's hard to be sure, but he looks short there. However I've already
admitted that I might be wrong and he was taller than the 4' I said he was.

If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back. That's
Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about the
middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with the
horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also a good
friend of mine.
--
Ken
musika
2021-04-06 18:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the
NY Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture
on the bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
It's hard to be sure, but he looks short there. However I've already
admitted that I might be wrong and he was taller than the 4' I said he was.
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back.
That's Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about
the middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with
the horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also
a good friend of mine.
<Loading Image...>
--
Ray
UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-06 18:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the
NY Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture
on the bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
It's hard to be sure, but he looks short there. However I've already
admitted that I might be wrong and he was taller than the 4' I said he was.
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back.
That's Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about
the middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with
the horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also
a good friend of mine.
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/50/51/e45051b315096a2ac4218d1507d25016.jpg>
All 9 of the visible opponents look younger than 12.
Ken Blake
2021-04-06 19:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the
NY Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture
on the bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
It's hard to be sure, but he looks short there. However I've already
admitted that I might be wrong and he was taller than the 4' I said he was.
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back.
That's Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about
the middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with
the horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also
a good friend of mine.
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/50/51/e45051b315096a2ac4218d1507d25016.jpg>
Yes, that's the picture I was referring to. It was taken at the
Manhattan Chess Club, of which I was a member, not the Yorktown Chess Club.
--
Ken
musika
2021-04-06 20:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back.
That's Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about
the middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with
the horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also
a good friend of mine.
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/50/51/e45051b315096a2ac4218d1507d25016.jpg>
Yes, that's the picture I was referring to. It was taken at the
Manhattan Chess Club, of which I was a member, not the Yorktown Chess Club.
It doesn't say where the photo was taken, it refers to the "12 members".
Is that a mistake?
--
Ray
UK
Ken Blake
2021-04-06 21:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back.
That's Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about
the middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with
the horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also
a good friend of mine.
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/50/51/e45051b315096a2ac4218d1507d25016.jpg>
Yes, that's the picture I was referring to. It was taken at the
Manhattan Chess Club, of which I was a member, not the Yorktown Chess Club.
It doesn't say where the photo was taken, it refers to the "12 members".
Is that a mistake?
I don't think it's a mistake. I was just clarifying where the picture
was taken. The kids came there from Yorktown. The site of the photo is
clearly the Manhattan Chess Club. I remember it well.
--
Ken
musika
2021-04-06 21:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back.
That's Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about
the middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with
the horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also
a good friend of mine.
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/50/51/e45051b315096a2ac4218d1507d25016.jpg>
Yes, that's the picture I was referring to. It was taken at the
Manhattan Chess Club, of which I was a member, not the Yorktown Chess Club.
It doesn't say where the photo was taken, it refers to the "12 members".
Is that a mistake?
I don't think it's a mistake. I was just clarifying where the picture
was taken. The kids came there from Yorktown. The site of the photo is
clearly the Manhattan Chess Club. I remember it well.
OK, thanks.
--
Ray
UK
Lewis
2021-04-07 14:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>

Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
Post by Ken Blake
It's hard to be sure, but he looks short there. However I've already
admitted that I might be wrong and he was taller than the 4' I said he was.
Kids have growth spurts. He may have been quite short at 13 and tall at
15. That's not even unusual for a male.

When I was 13 I was much shorter than my wife, who was already 5'9, and
I am pretty sure I was not 5' tall then. Even shortly after my 15th
birthday I was shorter then she was, noticeably. By the time I was 16 (or
even a bit before) we were just about the same height. I didn't pass her
until I was about 18. She didn't get any taller in the intervening years.

I certainly knew kids who shot up much more remarkably, including one
freshman when i was a senior who was a titchy little squib and two years
later was one if the taller kids in the school.

The AVERAGE is that from 12-15 a male will get 7-8" taller, but of
course some kids are well above that average, and for males the largest
growth year is usually the year from 14 to 15.

That said, 4' is PROBABLY a bit of an underestimation, though entirely
understandable as 1) memory is imperfect 2) short always seem shorter
than reality much like tall always seems taller. I had a friend who is
2.00 meters tall (6'7") and people often thought he must be over seven
feet tall.
Post by Ken Blake
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back. That's
Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about the
middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with the
horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also a good
friend of mine.
--
'I really should talk to him, sir. He's had a near-death experience!'
'We all do. It's called living.'
Paul Epstein
2021-04-07 15:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 3:23:57 PM UTC+1, Lewis wrote:
...
Post by Lewis
2) short always seem shorter
than reality much like tall always seems taller.
I remember being seven years old and telling my Mum excitedly, "There's a girl in my class who's so short!
She comes up to here on me! [pointing to my knee]"
My Mum (who had seen her) said "No, no, she's not all that short. You're a head taller than her. That's all."
I argued the point insistently, but I'm sure she was right.

Paul Epstein
Bebercito
2021-04-07 15:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
Post by Ken Blake
It's hard to be sure, but he looks short there. However I've already
admitted that I might be wrong and he was taller than the 4' I said he was.
Kids have growth spurts. He may have been quite short at 13 and tall at
15. That's not even unusual for a male.
When I was 13 I was much shorter than my wife, who was already 5'9, and
I am pretty sure I was not 5' tall then. Even shortly after my 15th
birthday I was shorter then she was, noticeably. By the time I was 16 (or
even a bit before) we were just about the same height. I didn't pass her
until I was about 18. She didn't get any taller in the intervening years.
I certainly knew kids who shot up much more remarkably, including one
freshman when i was a senior who was a titchy little squib and two years
later was one if the taller kids in the school.
The AVERAGE is that from 12-15 a male will get 7-8" taller, but of
course some kids are well above that average, and for males the largest
growth year is usually the year from 14 to 15.
That said, 4' is PROBABLY a bit of an underestimation, though entirely
understandable as 1) memory is imperfect 2) short always seem shorter
than reality much like tall always seems taller. I had a friend who is
2.00 meters tall (6'7") and people often thought he must be over seven
feet tall.
I think that has more to do with one's own relative height in general,
i.e. in this case, someone around 6'7'' can give a better estimate
than someone in the 4'11" range, just as e.g. someone 5'9" can give
a good estimate of someone in the 5'9" range. But when it comes
to extremely short or tall people, a majority of people are likely to
give an exceedingly inaccurate estimate as they're far removed
from extreme shortness or tallness.
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back. That's
Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about the
middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with the
horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also a good
friend of mine.
--
'I really should talk to him, sir. He's had a near-death experience!'
'We all do. It's called living.'
Quinn C
2021-04-07 17:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Lewis
That said, 4' is PROBABLY a bit of an underestimation,
Almost certainly. I quickly checked an age-height graph from the US for
male youth, and if I read that right, 4' is average at age 7 and at the
5th percentile point at age 8 1/2.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Lewis
though entirely
understandable as 1) memory is imperfect 2) short always seem shorter
than reality much like tall always seems taller. I had a friend who is
2.00 meters tall (6'7") and people often thought he must be over seven
feet tall.
I think that has more to do with one's own relative height in general,
i.e. in this case, someone around 6'7'' can give a better estimate
than someone in the 4'11" range, just as e.g. someone 5'9" can give
a good estimate of someone in the 5'9" range. But when it comes
to extremely short or tall people, a majority of people are likely to
give an exceedingly inaccurate estimate as they're far removed
from extreme shortness or tallness.
I'm in an ideal position then, being pretty close to the average height
of a human here in Canada.

But I think I compare people I see not just to myself, but also to other
people I know the height of (taller than my brother? shorter than my
ex?)
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Ken Blake
2021-04-07 19:10:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
That said, 4' is PROBABLY a bit of an underestimation,
Almost certainly. I quickly checked an age-height graph from the US for
male youth, and if I read that right, 4' is average at age 7 and at the
5th percentile point at age 8 1/2.
I'll repeat: "I've already admitted that I might be wrong and he was
taller than the 4' I said he was."
--
Ken
Ken Blake
2021-04-07 19:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
No, they were the standard chess tables at the Manhattan Chess Club, not
special ones for kids.
--
Ken
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-04-07 22:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
No, they were the standard chess tables at the Manhattan Chess Club, not
special ones for kids.
Were the all seats a standard height?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ken Blake
2021-04-07 23:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
No, they were the standard chess tables at the Manhattan Chess Club, not
special ones for kids.
Were the all seats a standard height?
I can't be sure of course, since I was last there over 60 years ago, but
yes, I think so.
--
Ken
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-04-08 14:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
No, they were the standard chess tables at the Manhattan Chess Club, not
special ones for kids.
Were the all seats a standard height?
I can't be sure of course, since I was last there over 60 years ago, but
yes, I think so.
The next obvious thought is: perhaps there were cushions to raise the
shorter-bodied players.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ken Blake
2021-04-08 16:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
I thought for a long time, then stuck my hand out, reached across the
table and said "OK, Bobby." He stood up, drew himself up to his full 4",
screamed "what?" and showed me h4.
His full 4"? What does that mean in this context?
That was approximately his height. He grew taller later but he was very
short then.
Makes sense, thanks - if read as 4 feet.
It doesn't actually make very much sense. Fischer was 13 years old, and four feet
is unusually short for that age (at least in the US). Besides, media reports describe him
as a tall 15-year-old.
Presumably, he seemed shorter than he was because most of the other players were fully grown or close to it.
If you have, or can find a copy in your local library, a copy of the NY
Times book about the Fischer-Spassky match, look at the picture on the
bottom on the page facing page 122. That was in 1956.
<reaches over to the left, grabs the book off the shelf, turns to page
122>
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
No, they were the standard chess tables at the Manhattan Chess Club, not
special ones for kids.
Were the all seats a standard height?
I can't be sure of course, since I was last there over 60 years ago, but
yes, I think so.
The next obvious thought is: perhaps there were cushions to raise the
shorter-bodied players.
That's possible, but I have no memory of it.
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-10 11:48:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:07:00 PM UTC+1, Ken Blake wrote:
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Ah yes, we've done this before. Bobby is too far away from anyone else
to be able to judge his height, and I don't know how tall the tables
would be, but since he is playing other kids, I'm guessing they are
pretty low?
No, they were the standard chess tables at the Manhattan Chess Club, not
special ones for kids.
Another possibility is that the recent film Downsizing, starting Matt Damon, was initially scripted by
members of the Manhattan Chess Club. To illustrate this idea to visiting Hollywood producers, they arranged
for specially small tables to be brought in. This idea finally came to fruition when the movie was made 60 years
later.
To save money on this film project, the Chess Club redelivered the tables back to the furniture designers as soon as
the simul had taken place, which is why Ken doesn't remember seeing these miniature children's tables.

Paul Epstein
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-04-08 14:47:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
[ … ]
Kids have growth spurts. He may have been quite short at 13 and tall at
15. That's not even unusual for a male.
When I was 13 I was much shorter than my wife, who was already 5'9, and
I am pretty sure I was not 5' tall then. Even shortly after my 15th
birthday I was shorter then she was, noticeably. By the time I was 16 (or
even a bit before) we were just about the same height. I didn't pass her
until I was about 18. She didn't get any taller in the intervening years.
My wife was in a class at school with essentially the same collection
of girls for ten years. At the beginning she was the tallest, but she
didn't grow taller and they overook her one by one; and at the end she
was about the shortest.
Post by Lewis
I certainly knew kids who shot up much more remarkably, including one
freshman when i was a senior who was a titchy little squib and two years
later was one if the taller kids in the school.
My second daughter was always very small (and shorter than her elder
sister) until she was 18, when she suddenly shot up and is now the
tallest of the three, and about my height.
Post by Lewis
The AVERAGE is that from 12-15 a male will get 7-8" taller, but of
course some kids are well above that average, and for males the largest
growth year is usually the year from 14 to 15.
That said, 4' is PROBABLY a bit of an underestimation, though entirely
understandable as 1) memory is imperfect 2) short always seem shorter
than reality much like tall always seems taller. I had a friend who is
2.00 meters tall (6'7") and people often thought he must be over seven
feet tall.
Post by Ken Blake
If you're interested, look at the people watching in the back. That's
Bill Lombardy (Fischer's second in the Spassky match) in about the
middle, pointing at something with his right hand. That's me with the
horizontally striped shirt, standing to his right. Bill was also a good
friend of mine.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
charles
2021-04-08 15:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
[ Π]
Kids have growth spurts. He may have been quite short at 13 and tall at
15. That's not even unusual for a male.
When I was 13 I was much shorter than my wife, who was already 5'9, and
I am pretty sure I was not 5' tall then. Even shortly after my 15th
birthday I was shorter then she was, noticeably. By the time I was 16 (or
even a bit before) we were just about the same height. I didn't pass her
until I was about 18. She didn't get any taller in the intervening years.
My wife was in a class at school with essentially the same collection
of girls for ten years. At the beginning she was the tallest, but she
didn't grow taller and they overook her one by one; and at the end she
was about the shortest.
Post by Lewis
I certainly knew kids who shot up much more remarkably, including one
freshman when i was a senior who was a titchy little squib and two years
later was one if the taller kids in the school.
My second daughter was always very small (and shorter than her elder
sister) until she was 18, when she suddenly shot up and is now the
tallest of the three, and about my height.
both my daughters are taller than me at over 6ft.

One of them at a job interview in the Ministry of Defence was asked "If you
are over 6ft tall, why do you wear heels?" Answer "To intimidate the
military." She got the job.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
--
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Paul Epstein
2021-04-11 12:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
To support the planned g4 and launch a King-side attack.
...
A chessgames.com kibitzer had exactly the same view of Rg1 that I did.
Although (of course), that doesn't make us right, and I strongly disagree with
the kibitzer's use of insulting language. I'm also sceptical of moves which unprotect
the b3 pawn. The comment is: "I thought white's game was ok until
16. Rg1, which looks really dumb. Why not 16. Rc1 or Qd2."

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-11 15:26:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
To support the planned g4 and launch a King-side attack.
...
A chessgames.com kibitzer had exactly the same view of Rg1 that I did.
Although (of course), that doesn't make us right, and I strongly disagree with
the kibitzer's use of insulting language. I'm also sceptical of moves which unprotect
the b3 pawn. The comment is: "I thought white's game was ok until
16. Rg1, which looks really dumb. Why not 16. Rc1 or Qd2."
In retrospect, it wasn't a good idea.

This was not a game I am proud of.
--
Ken
Bebercito
2021-04-11 16:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
To support the planned g4 and launch a King-side attack.
...
A chessgames.com kibitzer had exactly the same view of Rg1 that I did.
Although (of course), that doesn't make us right, and I strongly disagree with
the kibitzer's use of insulting language. I'm also sceptical of moves which unprotect
the b3 pawn. The comment is: "I thought white's game was ok until
16. Rg1, which looks really dumb. Why not 16. Rc1 or Qd2."
In retrospect, it wasn't a good idea.
This was not a game I am proud of.
On the upside, it gives you your "fifteen minutes of fame".
Post by Ken Blake
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-12 10:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
To support the planned g4 and launch a King-side attack.
...
A chessgames.com kibitzer had exactly the same view of Rg1 that I did.
Although (of course), that doesn't make us right, and I strongly disagree with
the kibitzer's use of insulting language. I'm also sceptical of moves which unprotect
the b3 pawn. The comment is: "I thought white's game was ok until
16. Rg1, which looks really dumb. Why not 16. Rc1 or Qd2."
In retrospect, it wasn't a good idea.
This was not a game I am proud of.
There's nothing wrong with the game at 2000-level. You could be proud of it as a learning experience.
Although resigning a not-lost position might seem embarrassing, it's not at all materially different from losing
your bishop because of missing h4 and resigning 10 moves later. And I don't think h4 is an easy find at 2000.

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-12 13:27:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
I'm a bit puzzled by your Rg1 -- why did you play that? It doesn't look like a good square to me.
To support the planned g4 and launch a King-side attack.
...
A chessgames.com kibitzer had exactly the same view of Rg1 that I did.
Although (of course), that doesn't make us right, and I strongly disagree with
the kibitzer's use of insulting language. I'm also sceptical of moves which unprotect
the b3 pawn. The comment is: "I thought white's game was ok until
16. Rg1, which looks really dumb. Why not 16. Rc1 or Qd2."
In retrospect, it wasn't a good idea.
This was not a game I am proud of.
There's nothing wrong with the game at 2000-level. You could be proud of it as a learning experience.
Nah. I learned nothing from it.
Post by Paul Epstein
Although resigning a not-lost position might seem embarrassing, it's not at all materially different from losing
your bishop because of missing h4 and resigning 10 moves later. And I don't think h4 is an easy find at 2000.
If I lost a bishop against a player of his strength, and had no
compensation for it, I would always resign immediately. No need to wait
ten moves if I'm down a piece.
--
Ken
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 16:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
I knew Fischer very well in those years. Yes, we played against each
other in the Junior championship. I made the mistake of resigning in an
almost-equal position, because I didn't see the saving move and thought
I had to lose a piece.

He went on to win the tournament, and then , as junior champion, to
playing in the US championship, which was later.
Post by Paul Epstein
2) What was your score,
I don't remember my score, but I think I lost that game and one other,
drew twice, and won all the rest. I tied for fifth. All the common
tie-breaking systems would have given me fifth place, but a new one was
used and I placed sixth.
Post by Paul Epstein
and what was your age
18
Post by Paul Epstein
and the age ceiling?
I think 21 (or perhaps 20).

Even with that loss, I would have come in fourth except that in the last
round, despite my being fortunate enough to be paired with one of the
weakest players in the tournamnt, I drew. He played the Ruy Lopez, and I
foolishly played Bird's defense to it, to draw him out of any book lines
he knew. He quickly got the better position, and soon, being afraid of
me, he offered a draw. I turned him down. After each subsequent move, he
again offered a draw, and i again turned it down. Eventually I realized
that if I didn't accept the draw offer, I was going to lose, so i
accepted it.

He then offered to play some offhand games. I must have beaten him 100
games in a row.

As I said, Fischer and I knew each other well, since we both frequented
the Manhattan Chess Club. We played only one other tournament game,
which we drew, but we played many off-hand games, the great majority of
which I won (that was well before he was anywhere near grandmaster level).

At the time of the 1956 Junior Championship, he and I were approximately
the same strength, and I had a chance of winning the tournament too. But
soon after that tournament his strength skyrocketed, and alas, mine didn't.
--
Ken
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-04 20:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
I knew Fischer very well in those years. Yes, we played against each
other in the Junior championship. I made the mistake of resigning in an
almost-equal position, because I didn't see the saving move and thought
I had to lose a piece.
He went on to win the tournament, and then , as junior champion, to
playing in the US championship, which was later.
Post by Paul Epstein
2) What was your score,
I don't remember my score, but I think I lost that game and one other,
drew twice, and won all the rest. I tied for fifth. All the common
tie-breaking systems would have given me fifth place, but a new one was
used and I placed sixth.
Post by Paul Epstein
and what was your age
18
Post by Paul Epstein
and the age ceiling?
I think 21 (or perhaps 20).
Even with that loss, I would have come in fourth except that in the last
round, despite my being fortunate enough to be paired with one of the
weakest players in the tournamnt, I drew. He played the Ruy Lopez, and I
foolishly played Bird's defense to it, to draw him out of any book lines
he knew. He quickly got the better position, and soon, being afraid of
me, he offered a draw. I turned him down. After each subsequent move, he
again offered a draw, and i again turned it down. Eventually I realized
that if I didn't accept the draw offer, I was going to lose, so i
accepted it.
He then offered to play some offhand games. I must have beaten him 100
games in a row.
As I said, Fischer and I knew each other well, since we both frequented
the Manhattan Chess Club. We played only one other tournament game,
which we drew, but we played many off-hand games, the great majority of
which I won (that was well before he was anywhere near grandmaster level).
At the time of the 1956 Junior Championship, he and I were approximately
the same strength, and I had a chance of winning the tournament too. But
soon after that tournament his strength skyrocketed, and alas, mine didn't.
So you got a life instead,

Jan
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 20:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Even the US Junior championship, which I played in in
1956, was a Swiss.
1) I think Bobby Fischer was playing in the main (adult) event at that time.
Was that at the same venue and did you see (or meet) Fischer?
I knew Fischer very well in those years. Yes, we played against each
other in the Junior championship. I made the mistake of resigning in an
almost-equal position, because I didn't see the saving move and thought
I had to lose a piece.
He went on to win the tournament, and then , as junior champion, to
playing in the US championship, which was later.
Post by Paul Epstein
2) What was your score,
I don't remember my score, but I think I lost that game and one other,
drew twice, and won all the rest. I tied for fifth. All the common
tie-breaking systems would have given me fifth place, but a new one was
used and I placed sixth.
Post by Paul Epstein
and what was your age
18
Post by Paul Epstein
and the age ceiling?
I think 21 (or perhaps 20).
Even with that loss, I would have come in fourth except that in the last
round, despite my being fortunate enough to be paired with one of the
weakest players in the tournamnt, I drew. He played the Ruy Lopez, and I
foolishly played Bird's defense to it, to draw him out of any book lines
he knew. He quickly got the better position, and soon, being afraid of
me, he offered a draw. I turned him down. After each subsequent move, he
again offered a draw, and i again turned it down. Eventually I realized
that if I didn't accept the draw offer, I was going to lose, so i
accepted it.
He then offered to play some offhand games. I must have beaten him 100
games in a row.
As I said, Fischer and I knew each other well, since we both frequented
the Manhattan Chess Club. We played only one other tournament game,
which we drew, but we played many off-hand games, the great majority of
which I won (that was well before he was anywhere near grandmaster level).
At the time of the 1956 Junior Championship, he and I were approximately
the same strength, and I had a chance of winning the tournament too. But
soon after that tournament his strength skyrocketed, and alas, mine didn't.
So you got a life instead,
Very true.
--
Ken
Paul Epstein
2021-04-04 08:32:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 1:23:21 AM UTC+1, Ken Blake wrote:
...
Post by Ken Blake
Yes. The world's top players probably never enter Swiss tournaments. I
was talking about tournaments in general, not those of the world's top
players.
...
I don't think that's true. A few Swiss tournaments have high enough prizes that top
players can feel it's worth their while economically. For example, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave competed
in Gibraltar 2019, and was rated 2780.

Paul Epstein
Ken Blake
2021-04-04 16:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
...
Post by Ken Blake
Yes. The world's top players probably never enter Swiss tournaments. I
was talking about tournaments in general, not those of the world's top
players.
...
I don't think that's true. A few Swiss tournaments have high enough prizes that top
players can feel it's worth their while economically. For example, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave competed
in Gibraltar 2019, and was rated 2780.
OK, I'll change "never" to "seldom."
--
Ken
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-04 08:29:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in
-eu
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
That depends on what kind of a tournament it is. If it is a round-robin
tournament, yes that's correct. But not all tournaments are round-robin.
But this one was.
Full scores at for example
<https://chess24.com/en/read/news/cheating-scandal-hits-fide-world-online-university-championships>

Jan
Paul Epstein
2021-04-03 23:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-eu
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.
In the case presumed cheating by Osmak
simply disqualifying her doesn't work,
for you have to determine the effects on the other players.
As it went, Osmak was given a zero for all her games.
Those she had won from received 1/2 a point
instead of the zero they had.
The player who drew with Osmak was presumably upset by this.
All that hard work and effort to obtain the draw had no effect.
To be consistent, the lone player who drew could have been given
a full point, but I don't think that happened.

Paul Epstein
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-04 08:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-i
n-eu
Post by Paul Epstein
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.
In the case presumed cheating by Osmak
simply disqualifying her doesn't work,
for you have to determine the effects on the other players.
As it went, Osmak was given a zero for all her games.
Those she had won from received 1/2 a point
instead of the zero they had.
The player who drew with Osmak was presumably upset by this.
All that hard work and effort to obtain the draw had no effect.
To be consistent, the lone player who drew could have been given
a full point, but I don't think that happened.
Yes, that's what happened.
All players had their score against Osmak upped by 1/2 a point.
Those who lost got a 1/2, the one who drew got a 1.
I don't think she was unhappy with that,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-04-04 09:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in-eu
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.
In the case presumed cheating by Osmak
simply disqualifying her doesn't work,
for you have to determine the effects on the other players.
As it went, Osmak was given a zero for all her games.
Those she had won from received 1/2 a point
instead of the zero they had.
Then the new ranking had to be computed from the modified matrix,
(which came out to be what it already was,
except for Osman moving from top to bottom)
According to her wikiparticle "she was disqualified based on a
statistical analysis of her five games from the final." Can someone
explain what that means? What sort of statistical analysis can one do
of five chess games?
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-04 12:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/apr/02/chess-guildford-meet-match-in
-eu
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Epstein
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the
Tornelo platform last week produced a shock in the Women's Rapid when the
top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with
1 abstention) of Fide's Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and
therefore aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to
be bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified
don't "come last" but don't place at all.
It is not as simple as that.
The primary outcome of a chess tournament is not a list,
it is a matrix of results of all players agaist each other.
The final listing is derived from this.
When two players have an equal number of points
there are further rules to determine the final ranking.
In the case presumed cheating by Osmak
simply disqualifying her doesn't work,
for you have to determine the effects on the other players.
As it went, Osmak was given a zero for all her games.
Those she had won from received 1/2 a point
instead of the zero they had.
Then the new ranking had to be computed from the modified matrix,
(which came out to be what it already was,
except for Osman moving from top to bottom)
According to her wikiparticle "she was disqualified based on a
statistical analysis of her five games from the final." Can someone
explain what that means? What sort of statistical analysis can one do
of five chess games?
That gives at least 100 moves.
If she consistently plays the best moves according to the computer
that is highly suspicious.
Left to themselves even grand masters will occasionally
play inferior moves, or even make gross errors.
There opponent may not notice the error, but the computer does.
Playing too well, without errors is highly suspicious.
You know your statistics: if all moves are always the best
the cumulative probability for not computer goes down rapidly.

But in addition there was camera evidence.
She regularly looked away to some point
outside the camera field of view.
She claims that her peculiar eye movements are caused
by her having very poor vision in one eye.

In all, it is not a great case, but there is no appeal,

Jan

PS How times have changed. Only fifty years ago Hein Donner
declared with great aplomb that computers
wouldn't play grand master chess, for hundreds of years to come.
Nowadays computers routinely monitor grand masters
for the quality of their play.
s***@my-deja.com
2021-04-04 01:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Epstein
It's hard (for me) to make sense of this sentence from
"The first Fide World Universities Championship played online on the Tornelo platform last week
produced a shock in the Women’s Rapid when the top seeded winner with 4.5/5,
IM Iulija Osmak of Ukraine, was disqualified by a minimum vote (2-1 with 1 abstention)
of Fide’s Fair Play Panel and placed last."
Surely, when competitors are disqualified, they don't come last (and therefore
aren't "placed last") but are treated as non-particpants.
I would find a rule that awarded last place as a penalty for cheating to be
bizarre as disqualification is the standard tool. The disqualified don't "come last" but don't place at all.
Their rules - they decide?
Loading...