Discussion:
San Antonio, 1972: Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. First International Chess Tournament
(too old to reply)
samsloan
2009-10-11 04:47:32 UTC
Permalink
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.

The tournament was organized by Bill Church, who had a great deal of
money at that time. He had expanded a small fried-chicken chain of
only four outlets that he had inherited from his father into a giant
operation with more than 400 restaurants.

He also established what are now called “Grand Prix Points” where
grandmasters can tour the country playing in small tournaments and win
big prizes awarded to those who collect the most points. These were
known as “Chicken Points” and the “King of the Chicken Circuit” became
Igor Ivanov, who could be counted on to show up at a tournament
somewhere in the country almost every weekend. Ivanov toured the
country with an unlimited Greyhound Bus pass.

Bill Church is still around and the company is still in business. Bill
Church made a cash donation to the US Senior Open Championship held
earlier this year.

The organizers of San Antonio 1972 put together a great collection of
some of the world's leading grandmasters (back then when the
grandmaster title meant something) and combined them with the most
promising young players that North America had to offer.

Four of the top ten rated players in the world participated, including
Petrosian, ranked number 3, Portisch, ranked number 6, Karpov ranked
number 7 and Larsen, ranked number 10. The main ones in the top ten
who did not play were, of course, Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky, who
had just completed their epic chess match for the World Championship
two months earlier.

In addition, every player who came from outside North America was
either a former or a future World Chess Champion or had participated
or would participate in a candidates tournament of the top eight
players in the world to determine the challenger for the next world
championship. Petrosian was a former world champion. Karpov was a
future world champion. Keres, Larsen and Gligoric had all played in
the Candidate's Tournaments. Mecking, Portisch, and Hort were to play
in future candidates matches.

Tigran Petrosian was World Champion from 1966 to 1969. Karpov was to
become World Champion from 1974 to 1984.

Keres had been the number two or number three player in the world (if
not number one) since 1938, although he had fallen down recently.

Combined with this was Walter Browne who was to win the US
Championship eight times, Julio Kaplan, who had been World Junior
Champion and the exciting Duncan Suttles who had invented his own
openings which had become known as the Suttles Systems.

I knew almost all of the players in the tournament. For example, I had
traveled around the country with Duncan Suttles in 1964 sharing rooms
with him while playing in chess tournaments, especially during the
1964 US Open in Boston. I had sort of attached myself to him as I
recognized early his great talent for chess and his unusual and
creative playing style. Unfortunately, although I had often analyzed
chess with him, I had never mastered his Suttles System and every time
I had tried to play it, I lost.

I also knew the one player nobody else knew, Mario Campos Lopez. I had
spent one college semester at the University of Mexico in Mexico City
in the Fall of 1965. Mario Campos Lopez was already regarded as the
best player in Mexico. I played him many five minute games. I did not
win many of the games, although I am sure I won at least one.

Mario Campos Lopez had been invited to play in recognition of the fact
that the tournament was being held in Texas near to Mexico. Similarly,
Ken Smith was invited for being the best player in Texas. I must say
that Mario Campos Lopez did a lot better in this tournament than
anybody but me expected him to. He later won the Championship of
Mexico

I must add here that some of the players were later to become
associated with tragedies. Donald Byrne died in 1976 at the age of 45.
The illness that caused his death was never conclusively diagnosed but
is believed to have been possibly a form of lupus. Donald Byrne was
the nicest man I ever knew who played chess and his early death was a
great loss.

Paul Keres also died in 1976 at the age of 59 and Tigran Petrosian
died in 1984 at only 55. The poor quality of the health care system in
the Soviet Union may have contributed to their early deaths.

Henrique Mecking went on to win two Interzonal tournaments and was
regarded as one of the strongest players in the world. However, he
then became ill and dropped out of chess although he has come back and
played some recently.

The great success of this tournament was Duncan Suttles, who earned
the grandmaster title (back when the grandmaster title meant
something) in this event by beating Evans, Kaplan, Campos, Saidy and
Smith. As I had traveled with Suttles a lot, I knew a lot about the
way he played. For example, he often said that the strongest place for
the black king knight was at king's bishop two. His Suttles System for
black often involved playing an early f6, followed by Nh6 and Nf7.

This really threw off his opponents, who were used to facing
traditional style moves. Suttles played his strange moves based on
great strategic concepts he had developed. As a result, Suttles just
mopped up anybody rated less than 2300. Lower rated players faced a
quick death when meeting Suttles.

His problem was that the higher rated players could see through his
tactics. Anybody rated over 2400 usually beat him. He got into the
1965-1966 US Championship and was almost completely wiped out as he
finished last with 2.5 out of 11.

However, eventually he perfected his Suttles' Systems and started
beating grandmasters with it. In San Antonio 1972 he demonstrated that
he could hold his own against the higher rated grandmasters while
still wiping out the relatively lower rated. This got him the
Grandmaster title.

What makes this book especially great is not merely was it a great
tournament with great players, but that the players annotated some of
their own games. In this day and age, there are millions of games in
the chess databases, but annotated games are increasingly hard to
find.

This book has games annotated by Karpov, Larsen, Hort, Suttles,
Mecking, Donald Byrne, Gligoric, Keres, Saidy, Portisch, Kaplan, Evans
and Smith. Two games were annotated by both Larsen and Petrosian. In
addition, many of the games were annotated by International Master
David Levy.

This book also marks the beginning of a great series of books: the RHM
Series. San Antonio 1972 was the first of many high quality chess
books published by RHM.

This RHM Series of high quality chess books was the brain child of
Sidney Fried (born 22 June 1919 – died 1 June 1991). Sidney Fried was
not a strong player but was an aficionado or big fan of chess.

Sidney Fried had a lot of money. He had made his fortune in common
stock purchase warrants. Then, he made more money writing books and
two newsletters about it. His stock market books are still available
today, including such works as “Investment and Speculation with
Warrants - Options & Convertibles” and “Fortune building in the 70's
with common stock warrants and low-price stocks” by Sidney Fried.

Fried had a number of unusual habits, one of which was that he owned
nothing. He put everything he owned into his corporations, R H M
Press, a Division of RHM Associates of Delaware, Inc.

Fried was a member of the Libertarian Party. Since Fried had no
assets, this enabled him to get away with not paying any taxes.
However, upon his death it was discovered that he had left no will and
therefore nothing, including his New York townhouse, his personal home
on Long Island, his yacht and his California estate that were owned by
his corporations could be inherited.

This also affected the publication of this book. It appears that all
of his RHM books were “Work Made for Hire” books, in which he paid the
authors in cash rather than signing standard royalty agreements. This
certainly simplified matters. It enabled his books to have numerous
authors, translators and editors, and a chief editor, Burt Hochberg
(1933-2006). Hochberg wrote, “grandmasters were very well paid to
write them.” Imagine the difficulties of dividing royalty payments
among the many contributors and the even bigger problems of trying to
negotiate royalty deals with different people. (For example, “I demand
to be paid as much as Petrosian!!!”)

Eventually, Sidney Fried lost a lot of money the same way he had made
it, gambling on stock market purchase options and warrants. It is not
clear whether he died broke or nearly broke, but in any case he left
behind a great series of chess books that we can still read today and
remember him by.

This book was originally published in Descriptive Chess Notation.
Since that time, Descriptive has become almost obsolete. For that
reason, all 120 games in this book have been converted into modern
Algebraic Notation and are included in an appendix in the back of the
book.

The games in the back are grouped and sorted alphabetically according
to the player of the white pieces. Thus, all games in which Browne
played White are first, followed by the games by Byrne, Campos-Lopez,
Evans, Gligoric, Hort, Kaplan, Karpov, Keres, Larsen, Mecking,
Petrosian, Portisch, Saidy and Smith in that order.

Sam Sloan
October 11, 2009

ISBN 4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?box=9784871878142&pos=-1&EAN=9784871878142
Offramp
2009-10-11 06:48:30 UTC
Permalink
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
jkh001
2009-10-11 18:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
samsloan
2009-10-11 19:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
I am sure if you dig up the copyright holder and ask him he will agree
to my reprinting of his book.

What everybody wonders is: Why are you so obsessed with Sam Sloan?
Matt Nemmers
2009-10-11 20:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
I am sure if you dig up the copyright holder and ask him he will agree
to my reprinting of his book.
Ah, yes....the classic Sloan "shoot first, aim second" school of
thought. He's good at that.

I hope the copyright holder DOESN'T agree with Sloan's reprinting and
takes him to court. I don't think he'd learn anything from that, but
it should would make for poetic justice.
jkh001
2009-10-11 21:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
I am sure if you dig up the copyright holder and ask him he will agree
to my reprinting of his book.
What everybody wonders is: Why are you so obsessed with Sam Sloan?
What a wonderful argument. So, if you steal something, it's OK because
_if_ you'd asked the owner he would have given it to you?

I doubt anyone except you wonders why I'm disgusted by a disgrace to
his species like you, Sam. It's an attitude shared by most of the sane
people.
h***@googlemail.com
2009-10-12 10:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
I am sure if you dig up the copyright holder and ask him he will agree
to my reprinting of his book.
What everybody wonders is: Why are you so obsessed with Sam Sloan?
well with Polgar lawsuit and other affairs that are happening with
this individual everybody seems to want to be obessesd
Chris F.A. Johnson
2009-10-11 21:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
Or that the work has passed into the public domain as everything
does eventually (unlikely for something as recent as this).
Post by jkh001
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
jkh001
2009-10-12 02:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
   Or that the work has passed into the public domain as everything
   does eventually (unlikely for something as recent as this).
Post by jkh001
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
--
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Anything copyrighted for the first time in 1972 will not enter public
domain (absent deliberate action by the copyright holder) until at
least 2047. (And I believe the notorious "Mickey Mouse Act" extended
that to 2067.)
samsloan
2009-10-12 07:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
   Or that the work has passed into the public domain as everything
   does eventually (unlikely for something as recent as this).
Post by jkh001
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
--
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Anything copyrighted for the first time in 1972 will not enter public
domain (absent deliberate action by the copyright holder) until at
least 2047. (And I believe the notorious "Mickey Mouse Act" extended
that to 2067.)
John Hillery knows nothing about US Copyright Law and, in case you
haven't noticed, he is obsessed with me.

For example, if you search you will see him claiming that I violated
somebody's copyright when I reprinted Domination in 2,545 Endgame
Studies by Ghenrikh M. Kasparyan.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891870

However, if you check you will find that I have a copyright on that
book registered with the US Copyright Office.

Similarly, every book I reprint has been thoroughly checked to make
sure I have the right to reprint it before I do so.

It is not my job to educate John Hillery regarding US Copyright law.

Sam Sloan
jkh001
2009-10-12 23:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by jkh001
Post by Offramp
The links aren't working yet - but this does sound like a good book...
It's an excellent book, but there's no evidence that Sloan has the
legal right to reprint it. Unless he has permission from the copyright
holder or proof that the copyright holder put it in public domain,
   Or that the work has passed into the public domain as everything
   does eventually (unlikely for something as recent as this).
Post by jkh001
what he's doing is illegal. (I wonder if he'll bring up the "Orphan
Copyright Act" again? It was introduced but never passed.)
--
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Anything copyrighted for the first time in 1972 will not enter public
domain (absent deliberate action by the copyright holder) until at
least 2047. (And I believe the notorious "Mickey Mouse Act" extended
that to 2067.)
John Hillery knows nothing about US Copyright Law and, in case you
haven't noticed, he is obsessed with me.
For example, if you search you will see him claiming that I violated
somebody's copyright when I reprinted Domination in 2,545 Endgame
Studies by Ghenrikh M. Kasparyan.http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891870
However, if you check you will find that I have a copyright on that
book registered with the US Copyright Office.
Similarly, every book I reprint has been thoroughly checked to make
sure I have the right to reprint it before I do so.
It is not my job to educate John Hillery regarding US Copyright law.
Sam Sloan
That's a flat-out lie, Sam. You've already admitted that you don't
have copyright on the San Antonio 72 book, and it's pretty clear you
pirated Elo's book as well. I don't need instruction in copyright law
from an ignoramus like you. You've been getting away with this stuff
because the books are of small commercial value and the copyright
owners (who may not even realize they owns it) haven't bothered to sue
you.

Do we really need any more reasons why I consider Sloan a loathsome
piece of scum? Good people die every day. What a pity this trash is
still walking the streets.
None
2009-10-12 23:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
It is not my job to educate John Hillery regarding US Copyright law.
Sam Sloan
That's a flat-out lie, Sam. You've already admitted that you don't
have copyright on the San Antonio 72 book, and it's pretty clear you
pirated Elo's book as well. I don't need instruction in copyright law
from an ignoramus like you. You've been getting away with this stuff
because the books are of small commercial value and the copyright
owners (who may not even realize they owns it) haven't bothered to sue
you.
Do we really need any more reasons why I consider Sloan a loathsome
piece of scum? Good people die every day. What a pity this trash is
still walking the streets.- Hide quoted text -
Don't be too hard on Sam. Just think of him as a boil on the ass of
humanity.
jkh001
2009-10-13 00:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by None
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
It is not my job to educate John Hillery regarding US Copyright law.
Sam Sloan
That's a flat-out lie, Sam. You've already admitted that you don't
have copyright on the San Antonio 72 book, and it's pretty clear you
pirated Elo's book as well. I don't need instruction in copyright law
from an ignoramus like you. You've been getting away with this stuff
because the books are of small commercial value and the copyright
owners (who may not even realize they owns it) haven't bothered to sue
you.
Do we really need any more reasons why I consider Sloan a loathsome
piece of scum? Good people die every day. What a pity this trash is
still walking the streets.- Hide quoted text -
Don't be too hard on Sam. Just think of him as a boil on the ass of
humanity.
Fair enough. After all, there's nothing between me and Sloan but
about three million years of evolution.
samsloan
2009-10-13 04:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Anything copyrighted for the first time in 1972 will not enter public
domain (absent deliberate action by the copyright holder) until at
least 2047. (And I believe the notorious "Mickey Mouse Act" extended
that to 2067.)
Notice that John Hillery gets the number 2047 by adding 75 to 1972.

This proves that he knows nothing about copyright law.

Sam Sloan
None
2009-10-13 15:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Anything copyrighted for the first time in 1972 will not enter public
domain (absent deliberate action by the copyright holder) until at
least 2047. (And I believe the notorious "Mickey Mouse Act" extended
that to 2067.)
Notice that John Hillery gets the number 2047 by adding 75 to 1972.
This proves that he knows nothing about copyright law.
Sam Sloan
Yea, it'll be available in 2022 unless they apply for the 50 year
extension which will run it to 2072
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-13 20:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
Not true. SA 1972 had a lot of sub-2500 players: Smith, Saidy,
Kaplan, Campos-Lopez, Suttles et al. The average Elo was only 2524,
Category 11. Besides New York 1924 (estimated at Category 13),
definitely stronger US tournaments included New York 1927 and the two
Piatigorsky Cups, 1963 and 1966, all estimated at Category 15. Also
possibly stronger was Dallas 1957.
Post by samsloan
In addition, every player who came from outside North America was
either a former or a future World Chess Champion or had participated
or would participate in a candidates tournament of the top eight
players in the world to determine the challenger for the next world
championship. Petrosian was a former world champion. Karpov was a
future world champion. Keres, Larsen and Gligoric had all played in
the Candidate's Tournaments. Mecking, Portisch, and Hort were to play
in future candidates matches.
This paragraph is rife with inaccuracies. Portisch had already been
a candidate twice by 1972 (in 1965 and 1968). Two of the Candidates
Tournaments had more than 8 players: 15 (including Keres) in 1953, and
10 (including Keres and Gligoric) in 1956. The last Candidates
Tournament before 1972 was in 1962; after that they were replaced with
knockout matches, so it is wrong to say that any SA 1972 players would
participate in future CTs, and also wrong to say that Larsen had ever
played in a CT, since he first was a Candidate in 1965.
Post by samsloan
Tigran Petrosian was World Champion from 1966 to 1969.
No, 1963 to 1969.
Post by samsloan
Karpov was to
become World Champion from 1974 to 1984.
No, 1975 to 1985.
samsloan
2009-10-14 04:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
  Not true. SA 1972 had a lot of sub-2500 players: Smith, Saidy,
Kaplan, Campos-Lopez, Suttles et al. The average Elo was only 2524,
Category 11. Besides New York 1924 (estimated at Category 13),
definitely stronger US tournaments included New York 1927 and the two
Piatigorsky Cups, 1963 and 1966, all estimated at Category 15. Also
possibly stronger was Dallas 1957.
What you are doing is comparing a tournament of 8 players to a
tournament of 16 players. That is not a balanced or a fair comparison.

When judging the comparative strength of tournaments, it is normal to
compare the top players, not the average or the bottom players.

I am reminded of a tournament a few years ago that was advertised as
"The Strongest Tournament ever played, stronger than even AVRO 1938".

However, that tournament turned out to have only four players, besides
which almost all the games were draws.

Another example: Reno 1999 is considered to have been the strongest US
Open ever held. (This was because the 1999 FIDE World Championship had
just been completed in Las Vegas and the eliminated players had been
recruited to play in Reno afterwords.) Reno 1999 is considered to have
been the strongest because the most grandmasters played, and not
because of the rating of the average player.

At San Antonio 1972, four of the top ten rated players in the world
participated, including Petrosian, ranked number 3, Portisch, ranked
number 6, Karpov ranked number 7 and Larsen, ranked number 10. The
main ones in the top ten who did not play were, of course, Bobby
Fischer and Boris Spassky, who had just completed their epic chess
match for the World Championship two months earlier.

In addition, super grandmasters Keres, Gligoric, Hort and Mecking
played at San Antonio.

Now, compare the top 8 at San Antonio 1972 with the field at the 1963
Piatigorsky Cup.

Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Gligoric Benko and
Panno were at the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup.

Petrosian, Portisch, Karpov, Larsen, Keres, Gligoric, Hort and Mecking
were in San Antonio 1972.

In short, the fields were about equal. It is a matter of opinion as to
which tournament was stronger.

In any case, San Antonio 1972 produced a better book than either of
the two Piatigorsky Cups, because each of the above grandmasters
annotated games.

Sam Sloan

ISBN 4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?box=9784871878142
help bot
2009-10-14 05:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
It is a matter of opinion as to which tournament was stronger.
Why is it that the feeble-minded so often have grave
difficulties with /consistency/? For instance, one of
them might write that a particular tournament was
"the strongest of all time" on a Monday, but on Tues-
day he might say it was merely a matter of opinion
as to which tourneys were really the strongest.

Anyway, although seriously flawed, Mr. Sloan's
nonsense often makes for an entertaining story. In
sharp contrast to the multitude who take pot shots
from their hiding places behind the trees, Mr. Sloan
actually creates new threads in which he attempts
-- often without much success -- to peddle his book
reprints by crafting interesting, "fact"-filled stories of
the good old days.

My view is that many of the chess books I've seen
are not worth reprinting, and in fact ought never to
have been written in the first place; but perhaps Mr.
Sloan will somehow stumble upon a few of the bet-
ter ones.


-- help bot
samsloan
2009-10-14 09:24:27 UTC
Permalink
I have found out why there are so many chess books.

It is because they sell.

All of my chess books are selling.

Of course I have the luxury of being able to choose from the best of
the old out-of-print chess books.

Sam Sloan
None
2009-10-14 17:24:19 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 14, 1:38 am, help bot <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
  Anyway, although seriously flawed, Mr. Sloan's
nonsense often makes for an entertaining story.  In
sharp contrast to the multitude who take pot shots
from their hiding places behind the trees, Mr. Sloan
actually creates new threads in which he attempts
-- often without much success -- to peddle his book
reprints by crafting interesting, "fact"-filled stories of
the good old days.   -- help bot

Yea he's almost as bad as those suckers that respond to Sanny's
GetCrap posts.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-14 14:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
  Not true. SA 1972 had a lot of sub-2500 players: Smith, Saidy,
Kaplan, Campos-Lopez, Suttles et al. The average Elo was only 2524,
Category 11. Besides New York 1924 (estimated at Category 13),
definitely stronger US tournaments included New York 1927 and the two
Piatigorsky Cups, 1963 and 1966, all estimated at Category 15. Also
possibly stronger was Dallas 1957.
What you are doing is comparing a tournament of 8 players to a
tournament of 16 players. That is not a balanced or a fair comparison.
Eh? It's not fair to compare by the players actually involved? This
is rather like saying that when we compare a Chevy Vega to a Cadillac,
we should pretend that the Vega is a Cadillac too.
Post by samsloan
When judging the comparative strength of tournaments, it is normal to
compare the top players, not the average or the bottom players.
Utter nonsense. If what Sam says is the "normal practice" actually
was the normal practice, then FIDE would base tournament categories
only on the top 8 players. FIDE does not. FIDE takes all players into
account.

Translation: Sam has been caught out in another of his many lies/
mistakes, and now he hastily tries to improvise a justification.
Post by samsloan
Now, compare the top 8 at San Antonio 1972 with the field at the 1963
Piatigorsky Cup.
Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Gligoric Benko and
Panno were at the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup.
Petrosian, Portisch, Karpov, Larsen, Keres, Gligoric, Hort and Mecking
were in San Antonio 1972.
In short, the fields were about equal.
Except for the 8 other players you don't mention at SA 1972, who
were rated an average 2438.
Post by samsloan
It is a matter of opinion as to
which tournament was stronger.
No, it's a matter of fact that San Antonio had such players as Smith
(2395), Saidy (2425), D. Byrne (2470), Suttles (2470), Kaplan (2470)
and Campos-Lopez (only 2200!). This drags down the overall strength of
the event. There's no getting around that fact.

Sam, if you had said that San Antonio 1972 was the strongest 16-
player round-robin ever held in the USA, I probably wouldn't disagree.
But you said strongest, period, with no exceptions or qualifications
but New York 1924.
Post by samsloan
In any case, San Antonio 1972 produced a better book than either of
the two Piatigorsky Cups, because each of the above grandmasters
annotated games.
You are obviously unfamliar with the Piatigorsky Cup books. The same
is true of them, especially the second, in which each grandmaster
annotated most or al of his own games.
samsloan
2009-10-14 15:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Actually, I appreciate the criticisms of Taylor Kingston because he
does occasionally catch genuine typos and mistakes that need to be
corrected.

That is the main reason why I post my forewords here a week or so
before the book comes out, hoping that any typos will be noticed here
before the book is actually published.

However, I disagree that the strength of a tournament is determined by
the average players. FIDE set up its Category System as a way to
determine title norms. For example, to get the Grandmaster Title one
must score X in a Category 15 tournament or Y in a Category 13
tournament etc.

The general public does not look at these categories or even know what
they mean.

In this case, the first Piatigorsky Cup had

Keres, Petrosian, Gligoric, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Benko and
Panno.

San Antonio 1972 had Keres, Petrosian, Gligoric, Karpov, Portisch,
Larsen, Hort and Mecking.

Since three of the players were the same, it becomes a question of who
was better:

Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Benko and Panno

or

Karpov, Portisch, Larsen, Hort and Mecking

Actually, it is a toss-up but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger. Karpov was better than Najdorf, Portisch was better
than Larsen.

In any case, the book will be out later today or possibly tomorrow.


ISBN 4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?box=9784871878142

On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.

Sam Sloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
  Not true. SA 1972 had a lot of sub-2500 players: Smith, Saidy,
Kaplan, Campos-Lopez, Suttles et al. The average Elo was only 2524,
Category 11. Besides New York 1924 (estimated at Category 13),
definitely stronger US tournaments included New York 1927 and the two
Piatigorsky Cups, 1963 and 1966, all estimated at Category 15. Also
possibly stronger was Dallas 1957.
What you are doing is comparing a tournament of 8 players to a
tournament of 16 players. That is not a balanced or a fair comparison.
  Eh? It's not fair to compare by the players actually involved? This
is rather like saying that when we compare a Chevy Vega to a Cadillac,
we should pretend that the Vega is a Cadillac too.
Post by samsloan
When judging the comparative strength of tournaments, it is normal to
compare the top players, not the average or the bottom players.
  Utter nonsense. If what Sam says is the "normal practice" actually
was the normal practice, then FIDE would base tournament categories
only on the top 8 players. FIDE does not. FIDE takes all players into
account.
  Translation: Sam has been caught out in another of his many lies/
mistakes, and now he hastily tries to improvise a justification.
Post by samsloan
Now, compare the top 8 at San Antonio 1972 with the field at the 1963
Piatigorsky Cup.
Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Gligoric Benko and
Panno were at the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup.
Petrosian, Portisch, Karpov, Larsen, Keres, Gligoric, Hort and Mecking
were in San Antonio 1972.
In short, the fields were about equal.
  Except for the 8 other players you don't mention at SA 1972, who
were rated an average 2438.
Post by samsloan
It is a matter of opinion as to
which tournament was stronger.
  No, it's a matter of fact that San Antonio had such players as Smith
(2395), Saidy (2425), D. Byrne (2470), Suttles (2470), Kaplan (2470)
and Campos-Lopez (only 2200!). This drags down the overall strength of
the event. There's no getting around that fact.
  Sam, if you had said that San Antonio 1972 was the strongest 16-
player round-robin ever held in the USA, I probably wouldn't disagree.
But you said strongest, period, with no exceptions or qualifications
but New York 1924.
Post by samsloan
In any case, San Antonio 1972 produced a better book than either of
the two Piatigorsky Cups, because each of the above grandmasters
annotated games.
  You are obviously unfamliar with the Piatigorsky Cup books. The same
is true of them, especially the second, in which each grandmaster
annotated most or al of his own games.
samsloan
2009-10-14 16:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, this one works better:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9784871878142&box=978-4-87187-814-2%20&pos=-1
Post by samsloan
Actually, I appreciate the criticisms of Taylor Kingston because he
does occasionally catch genuine typos and mistakes that need to be
corrected.
That is the main reason why I post my forewords here a week or so
before the book comes out, hoping that any typos will be noticed here
before the book is actually published.
However, I disagree that the strength of a tournament is determined by
the average players. FIDE set up its Category System as a way to
determine title norms. For example, to get the Grandmaster Title one
must score X in a Category 15 tournament or Y in a Category 13
tournament etc.
The general public does not look at these categories or even know what
they mean.
In this case, the first Piatigorsky Cup had
Keres, Petrosian, Gligoric, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Benko and
Panno.
San Antonio 1972 had Keres, Petrosian, Gligoric, Karpov, Portisch,
Larsen, Hort and Mecking.
Since three of the players were the same, it becomes a question of who
Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Benko and Panno
or
Karpov, Portisch, Larsen, Hort and Mecking
Actually, it is a toss-up but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger. Karpov was better than Najdorf, Portisch was better
than Larsen.
In any case, the book will be out later today or possibly tomorrow.
ISBN  4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?box=97848...
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
Sam Sloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
  Not true. SA 1972 had a lot of sub-2500 players: Smith, Saidy,
Kaplan, Campos-Lopez, Suttles et al. The average Elo was only 2524,
Category 11. Besides New York 1924 (estimated at Category 13),
definitely stronger US tournaments included New York 1927 and the two
Piatigorsky Cups, 1963 and 1966, all estimated at Category 15. Also
possibly stronger was Dallas 1957.
What you are doing is comparing a tournament of 8 players to a
tournament of 16 players. That is not a balanced or a fair comparison.
  Eh? It's not fair to compare by the players actually involved? This
is rather like saying that when we compare a Chevy Vega to a Cadillac,
we should pretend that the Vega is a Cadillac too.
Post by samsloan
When judging the comparative strength of tournaments, it is normal to
compare the top players, not the average or the bottom players.
  Utter nonsense. If what Sam says is the "normal practice" actually
was the normal practice, then FIDE would base tournament categories
only on the top 8 players. FIDE does not. FIDE takes all players into
account.
  Translation: Sam has been caught out in another of his many lies/
mistakes, and now he hastily tries to improvise a justification.
Post by samsloan
Now, compare the top 8 at San Antonio 1972 with the field at the 1963
Piatigorsky Cup.
Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Gligoric Benko and
Panno were at the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup.
Petrosian, Portisch, Karpov, Larsen, Keres, Gligoric, Hort and Mecking
were in San Antonio 1972.
In short, the fields were about equal.
  Except for the 8 other players you don't mention at SA 1972, who
were rated an average 2438.
Post by samsloan
It is a matter of opinion as to
which tournament was stronger.
  No, it's a matter of fact that San Antonio had such players as Smith
(2395), Saidy (2425), D. Byrne (2470), Suttles (2470), Kaplan (2470)
and Campos-Lopez (only 2200!). This drags down the overall strength of
the event. There's no getting around that fact.
  Sam, if you had said that San Antonio 1972 was the strongest 16-
player round-robin ever held in the USA, I probably wouldn't disagree.
But you said strongest, period, with no exceptions or qualifications
but New York 1924.
Post by samsloan
In any case, San Antonio 1972 produced a better book than either of
the two Piatigorsky Cups, because each of the above grandmasters
annotated games.
  You are obviously unfamliar with the Piatigorsky Cup books. The same
is true of them, especially the second, in which each grandmaster
annotated most or al of his own games.
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-14 16:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Actually, I appreciate the criticisms of Taylor Kingston because he
does occasionally catch genuine typos and mistakes that need to be
corrected.
That is the main reason why I post my forewords here a week or so
before the book comes out, hoping that any typos will be noticed here
before the book is actually published.
However, I disagree that the strength of a tournament is determined by
the average players.
I disagree too. The FIDE category is determined by the average
rating of all the players, not the rating of the average players.
Post by samsloan
FIDE set up its Category System as a way to
determine title norms. For example, to get the Grandmaster Title one
must score X in a Category 15 tournament or Y in a Category 13
tournament etc.
The general public does not look at these categories or even know what
they mean.
Neither does Sam Sloan, apparently. And the general public does not
know Portisch from Portsmouth, Larsen from larceny, Gligoric from
Gigli, Saidy from Satie, or Keres from caries. So invoking what the
general public does not know totally fails to justify your claim that
San Antonio 1972 was stronger than New York 1927 or the two
Piatigorsky Cups.
Post by samsloan
Actually, it is a toss-up
Oh, it's just a toss-up now? You seem to be changing your tune.
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
All we see here is that because our Sam is bringing out a book on SA
1972, he will contrive any argument, however illogical, that it was
the greatest tournament. If instead he were bringing out a book on
Santa Monica 1966, he'd use any handy excuse to claim it was the
stronger tournament and to denigrate SA 1972.
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
Eh? I made no mention of "paper, printing and binding." I replied to
your claim that "San Antonio 1972 produced a better book than either
of the two Piatigorsky Cups, because each of the above grandmasters
annotated games." The players annotated their own games in both
Piatigorsky Cup books, therefore SA 1972 cannot be considered better
on this score. This has nothing to do with the physical qualities of
the books.

And Sam — are you telling us that your copyright-violating reprint
of SA 1972 is going to be a nice hardcover like the Piatigorsky books?
I rather doubt it.
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
  Not true. SA 1972 had a lot of sub-2500 players: Smith, Saidy,
Kaplan, Campos-Lopez, Suttles et al. The average Elo was only 2524,
Category 11. Besides New York 1924 (estimated at Category 13),
definitely stronger US tournaments included New York 1927 and the two
Piatigorsky Cups, 1963 and 1966, all estimated at Category 15. Also
possibly stronger was Dallas 1957.
What you are doing is comparing a tournament of 8 players to a
tournament of 16 players. That is not a balanced or a fair comparison.
  Eh? It's not fair to compare by the players actually involved? This
is rather like saying that when we compare a Chevy Vega to a Cadillac,
we should pretend that the Vega is a Cadillac too.
Post by samsloan
When judging the comparative strength of tournaments, it is normal to
compare the top players, not the average or the bottom players.
  Utter nonsense. If what Sam says is the "normal practice" actually
was the normal practice, then FIDE would base tournament categories
only on the top 8 players. FIDE does not. FIDE takes all players into
account.
  Translation: Sam has been caught out in another of his many lies/
mistakes, and now he hastily tries to improvise a justification.
Post by samsloan
Now, compare the top 8 at San Antonio 1972 with the field at the 1963
Piatigorsky Cup.
Keres, Petrosian, Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Gligoric Benko and
Panno were at the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup.
Petrosian, Portisch, Karpov, Larsen, Keres, Gligoric, Hort and Mecking
were in San Antonio 1972.
In short, the fields were about equal.
  Except for the 8 other players you don't mention at SA 1972, who
were rated an average 2438.
Post by samsloan
It is a matter of opinion as to
which tournament was stronger.
  No, it's a matter of fact that San Antonio had such players as Smith
(2395), Saidy (2425), D. Byrne (2470), Suttles (2470), Kaplan (2470)
and Campos-Lopez (only 2200!). This drags down the overall strength of
the event. There's no getting around that fact.
  Sam, if you had said that San Antonio 1972 was the strongest 16-
player round-robin ever held in the USA, I probably wouldn't disagree.
But you said strongest, period, with no exceptions or qualifications
but New York 1924.
Post by samsloan
In any case, San Antonio 1972 produced a better book than either of
the two Piatigorsky Cups, because each of the above grandmasters
annotated games.
  You are obviously unfamliar with the Piatigorsky Cup books. The same
is true of them, especially the second, in which each grandmaster
annotated most or al of his own games.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
samsloan
2009-10-14 17:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Actually, I appreciate the criticisms of Taylor Kingston because he
does occasionally catch genuine typos and mistakes that need to be
corrected.
That is the main reason why I post my forewords here a week or so
before the book comes out, hoping that any typos will be noticed here
before the book is actually published.
However, I disagree that the strength of a tournament is determined by
the average players.
  I disagree too. The FIDE category is determined by the average
rating of all the players, not the rating of the average players.
Post by samsloan
FIDE set up its Category System as a way to
determine title norms. For example, to get the Grandmaster Title one
must score X in a Category 15 tournament or Y in a Category 13
tournament etc.
The general public does not look at these categories or even know what
they mean.
  Neither does Sam Sloan, apparently. And the general public does not
know Portisch from Portsmouth, Larsen from larceny, Gligoric from
Gigli, Saidy from Satie, or Keres from caries. So invoking what the
general public does not know totally fails to justify your claim that
San Antonio 1972 was stronger than New York 1927 or the two
Piatigorsky Cups.
Post by samsloan
Actually, it is a toss-up
  Oh, it's just a toss-up now? You seem to be changing your tune.
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.

I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup

Sam Sloan

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9784871878142&box=978-4-87187-814-2%20&pos=-1

ISBN 4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-14 17:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.
No, a typo would be something like "Portusch" or "Larden."
Post by samsloan
I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup
That's not a typo, that's Sam Sloan getting facts and names screwed
up for the umpteen-hundredth time. And in any event, the relative
merit of Portisch vs. Olafsson does not change the fact that Los
Angeles 1963 was four FIDE categories higher than San Antonio 1972.
Furthermore, every single player at Los Angeles 1963 had already
been a FIDE Candidate, and the field included the reigning World
Champion. San Antonio 1972 did not have the champion, and fewer than
half its players had been Candidates. So you see, Sam, it's very easy
to come up with ad hoc arguments that trump yours.
samsloan
2009-10-14 18:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.
  No, a typo would be something like "Portusch" or "Larden."
Post by samsloan
I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup
  That's not a typo, that's Sam Sloan getting facts and names screwed
up for the umpteen-hundredth time. And in any event, the relative
merit of Portisch vs. Olafsson does not change the fact that Los
Angeles 1963 was four FIDE categories higher than San Antonio 1972.
  Furthermore, every single player at Los Angeles 1963 had already
been a FIDE Candidate, and the field included the reigning World
Champion. San Antonio 1972 did not have the champion, and fewer than
half its players had been Candidates. So you see, Sam, it's very easy
to come up with ad hoc arguments that trump yours.
Not true at all.

Los Angeles 1963 was a zero category event.

They did not have categories back then.

Sam Sloan
samsloan
2009-10-14 18:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.
  No, a typo would be something like "Portusch" or "Larden."
Post by samsloan
I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup
  That's not a typo, that's Sam Sloan getting facts and names screwed
up for the umpteen-hundredth time. And in any event, the relative
merit of Portisch vs. Olafsson does not change the fact that Los
Angeles 1963 was four FIDE categories higher than San Antonio 1972.
  Furthermore, every single player at Los Angeles 1963 had already
been a FIDE Candidate, and the field included the reigning World
Champion. San Antonio 1972 did not have the champion, and fewer than
half its players had been Candidates. So you see, Sam, it's very easy
to come up with ad hoc arguments that trump yours.
Not true at all.
Los Angeles 1963 was a zero category event.
They did not have categories back then.
Sam Sloan
As long as Taylor Kingston is calling me a liar I can call him a liar
too.

There were no categories in 1963 and there were also no ratings in
1963.

This, his statement that the players in Los Angeles 1963 were rated
higher than the players in San Antonio 1972 is false.

Sam Sloan

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9784871878142&box=978-4-87187-814-2%20&pos=-1

ISBN 4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
samsloan
2009-10-15 13:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.
  No, a typo would be something like "Portusch" or "Larden."
Post by samsloan
I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup
  That's not a typo, that's Sam Sloan getting facts and names screwed
up for the umpteen-hundredth time. And in any event, the relative
merit of Portisch vs. Olafsson does not change the fact that Los
Angeles 1963 was four FIDE categories higher than San Antonio 1972.
  Furthermore, every single player at Los Angeles 1963 had already
been a FIDE Candidate, and the field included the reigning World
Champion. San Antonio 1972 did not have the champion, and fewer than
half its players had been Candidates. So you see, Sam, it's very easy
to come up with ad hoc arguments that trump yours.
Not true at all.
Los Angeles 1963 was a zero category event.
They did not have categories back then.
Sam Sloan
As long as Taylor Kingston is calling me a liar I can call him a liar
too.
There were no categories in 1963 and there were also no ratings in
1963.
This, his statement that the players in Los Angeles 1963 were rated
higher than the players in San Antonio 1972 is false.
Sam Sloan
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=97848...
ISBN  4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
If you want this book you should buy it right now as a pre-order at
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9784871878142

Barnes and Noble is offering it as a pre-order for only $17.51

However, the book was published yesterday. They just do not know it
yet. You will never be able to get it for $17.51 after they realize
that it is out.

The Petrosian book will be published later today.

Next in line are books by Capablanca, William Winter, Staunton, Kotov,
and CHOD Alexander.

I am trying to get them out before the Christmas Rush.

Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-14 18:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.
  No, a typo would be something like "Portusch" or "Larden."
Post by samsloan
I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup
  That's not a typo, that's Sam Sloan getting facts and names screwed
up for the umpteen-hundredth time. And in any event, the relative
merit of Portisch vs. Olafsson does not change the fact that Los
Angeles 1963 was four FIDE categories higher than San Antonio 1972.
  Furthermore, every single player at Los Angeles 1963 had already
been a FIDE Candidate, and the field included the reigning World
Champion. San Antonio 1972 did not have the champion, and fewer than
half its players had been Candidates. So you see, Sam, it's very easy
to come up with ad hoc arguments that trump yours.
Not true at all.
Los Angeles 1963 was a zero category event.
They did not have categories back then.
Nor did they in 1924, yet you somehow concluded (correctly, for
once) that New York 1924 was stronger than San Antonio 1972.

Surely you are aware that category levels have been estimated for
most major tournaments going back to the 19th century. See for example
pages 124-128 of "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by Fox & James,
which lists about 90 tournaments dating from 1993 back to 1870. Los
Angeles 1963 is on page 126 at Category 15. San Antonio 1972 ain't
even on the list.
samsloan
2009-10-14 20:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
but I feel that San Antonio 1972 was
slightly stronger ... Portisch was better than Larsen.
  Since Portisch and Larsen both played in both Santa Monica 1966 and
San Antonio 1972, the question of which was better is totally
irrelevant.
That was obviously a typo.
  No, a typo would be something like "Portusch" or "Larden."
Post by samsloan
I meant to write: Portisch was better than Olafsson, the equivalent
player in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup
  That's not a typo, that's Sam Sloan getting facts and names screwed
up for the umpteen-hundredth time. And in any event, the relative
merit of Portisch vs. Olafsson does not change the fact that Los
Angeles 1963 was four FIDE categories higher than San Antonio 1972.
  Furthermore, every single player at Los Angeles 1963 had already
been a FIDE Candidate, and the field included the reigning World
Champion. San Antonio 1972 did not have the champion, and fewer than
half its players had been Candidates. So you see, Sam, it's very easy
to come up with ad hoc arguments that trump yours.
Not true at all.
Los Angeles 1963 was a zero category event.
They did not have categories back then.
  Nor did they in 1924, yet you somehow concluded (correctly, for
once) that New York 1924 was stronger than San Antonio 1972.
  Surely you are aware that category levels have been estimated for
most major tournaments going back to the 19th century. See for example
pages 124-128 of "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by Fox & James,
which lists about 90 tournaments dating from 1993 back to 1870. Los
Angeles 1963 is on page 126 at Category 15. San Antonio 1972 ain't
even on the list.
So, you are relying on a book that two completely unknown people wrote
to contradict a great and distinguished author such as myself.

Of course, I know that New York 1924 was a strong tournament because
at least two of my other books discuss it.

Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Reti

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780923891480
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/092389148X


And My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937 by Alekhine

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9784871878265
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878260

Fell into that one, didn't you?

By the way, San Antonio 1972 is out now.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9784871878142

Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-14 21:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
  Surely you are aware that category levels have been estimated for
most major tournaments going back to the 19th century. See for example
pages 124-128 of "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by Fox & James,
which lists about 90 tournaments dating from 1993 back to 1870. Los
Angeles 1963 is on page 126 at Category 15. San Antonio 1972 ain't
even on the list.
to contradict a great and distinguished author such as myself.
Two points, Sam:

1. You are about as "great and distinguished" as Pee Wee Herman is
muscular.

2. The tournament rankings I referred to were not calculated by any
"unknowns." They were published in the British Chess Magazine, and
were the work mainly of British civil servant and grading expert Sir
Richard Clarke, OBE, and British chess historian Ken Whyld. The Fox &
James book just happens to include their lists.
Fox and James, by the way, are regular columnists for CHESS
magazine, so they are hardly "unknown" either.
Post by samsloan
Fell into that one, didn't you?
Thus speaks Sam Sloan, the man whose shoe soles are banana peels.
Post by samsloan
By the way, San Antonio 1972 is out now.
Yes, it came out in 1973. Used copies in good condition are still
available:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=chess&sts=t&tn=san+antonio+1972&x=56&y=12
The Historian
2009-10-15 13:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
  Surely you are aware that category levels have been estimated for
most major tournaments going back to the 19th century. See for example
pages 124-128 of "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by Fox & James,
which lists about 90 tournaments dating from 1993 back to 1870. Los
Angeles 1963 is on page 126 at Category 15. San Antonio 1972 ain't
even on the list.
to contradict a great and distinguished author such as myself.
  1. You are about as "great and distinguished" as Pee Wee Herman is
muscular.
  2. The tournament rankings I referred to were not calculated by any
"unknowns." They were published in the British Chess Magazine, and
were the work mainly of British civil servant and grading expert Sir
Richard Clarke,  OBE, and British chess historian Ken Whyld. The Fox &
James book just happens to include their lists.
  Fox and James, by the way, are regular columnists for CHESS
magazine, so they are hardly "unknown" either.
"Were" regular columnists. At least one of them passed on, as I
recall.
Post by samsloan
Fell into that one, didn't you?
  Thus speaks Sam Sloan, the man whose shoe soles are banana peels.
Post by samsloan
By the way, San Antonio 1972 is out now.
  Yes, it came out in 1973. Used copies in good condition are still
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=chess&sts=t&tn=san+a...
Amy Nemmers
2009-10-15 01:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
to contradict a great and distinguished author such as myself.
LMAO. Sloan is about as "great and distinguished" as he is good
looking. Anyone who's ever seen a picture of him knows that.
Post by samsloan
Of course, I know that New York 1924 was a strong tournament because
at least two of my other books discuss it.
Again....LMAO. Sloan knows this because two of HIS books discuss it.
It MUST be true if HE wrote it.

Based on Sloan's logic, I guess everyone can conclude he's a slimebag
pedophile pervert racist who has all the intellectual faculties of a
frozen dogshit snowball because several people have posted that in
these and other newsgroups over the years.

It's on the all the Internets, y'all. It MUST be true!
zdrakec
2009-10-14 16:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
Strongly disagree, and I own copies of all three. My San Antonio 72
must be handled gently, but my Cup books are doing just fine,
especially the first one, thank you.

Can't tell you how happy I am not to own a reprint....

Regards Taylor, on the money as usual!

zdrakec
help bot
2009-10-14 21:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
Although Mr. Sloan later went on to mention the
allegedly-superior production quality of RHM books
such as the one on SA 1972, his main point (and
the one to which Mr.Kingston apparently respond-
ed) was this:

"What makes this book especially great is not merely was it a great
tournament with great players, but that the players annotated some of
their own games. In this day and age, there are millions of games in
the chess databases, but annotated games are increasingly hard to
find." -- Mr. Sloan


Now we see a shift in emphasis, from the rarity
of annotated games, to production quality of the
original book. I am left wondering why the pro-
duction quality of the original book even matters;
is it not possible to scan the contents using an
OCR program, then improve its presentation, if
necessary? Using this technique, could not all
/readable/ chess books be put on level terms,
as far as production quality is concerned?

Once again, we seem to detect a problem with
Mr. Sloan and /consistency/. Now, I think it is
self-evident that no way could Mr. Sloan be one
of those sleazy types, whose inconsistency is
explainble by their gross dishonesty; on the
contrary, it must then be feeble-mindedness, or
some other such explanation... .


-- help bot
jkh001
2009-10-14 22:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures. The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.

Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
Taylor Kingston
2009-10-14 22:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
samsloan
2009-10-14 23:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
The 400 customers who bought my books during the month of September
must have thought so.

Sam Sloan
jkh001
2009-10-15 00:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
The 400 customers who bought my books during the month of September
must have thought so.
Sam Sloan
If they had purchased /your/ books, I might agree. What they bought
were books by /good/ writers which you either pirated or picked up
from public domain. But I suppose explaining that to an NPD sufferer
is pointless.
samsloan
2009-10-14 23:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the two Piatigorsky Cup tournament books too.

Sam Sloan
jkh001
2009-10-15 00:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the two Piatigorsky Cup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
Theyr'e both still in print, from Hardinge Simpole. Not that law means
anything to the Sloon.
samsloan
2009-10-15 03:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the two Piatigorsky Cup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
Theyr'e both still in print, from Hardinge Simpole. Not that law means
anything to the Sloon.
It certainly does mean nothing.

Hardinge Simpole has reprinted books without the knowledge of the
authors even though the authors are still alive.
jkh001
2009-10-15 03:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the two Piatigorsky Cup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
Theyr'e both still in print, from Hardinge Simpole. Not that law means
anything to the Sloon.
It certainly does mean nothing.
Hardinge Simpole has reprinted books without the knowledge of the
authors even though the authors are still alive.
And your evidence for this would be? Like calling to like? Burbling
nitwit.
samsloan
2009-10-15 03:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the two Piatigorsky Cup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the two Piatigorsky Cup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
More than that, I will have to officially thank Taylor Kingston and
John Hillery for giving me the inspiration to reprint the two
Piatigorsky books.

My introduction will say: "I must thank my dear friends Taylor
Kingston and John Hillery for providing me with the inspiration to
reprint these books."

Sam Sloan
samsloan
2009-10-19 23:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the twoPiatigorskyCup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the twoPiatigorskyCup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
I in definitely reprinting the book of the First Piatigorsky cup
tournament. I am sending it to my scanner right now.

I will definitely state in the introduction that I owe a great debt to
my faithful correspondents John Hillery and Taylor Kingston, who
inspired me to reprint this book.

Sam Sloan
jkh001
2009-10-20 01:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the twoPiatigorskyCup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the twoPiatigorskyCup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
I in definitely reprinting the book of the First Piatigorsky cup
tournament. I am sending it to my scanner right now.
I will definitely state in the introduction that I owe a great debt to
my faithful correspondents John Hillery and Taylor Kingston, who
inspired me to reprint this book.
Sam Sloan
A hit, a very palpable hit.
jkh001
2009-10-20 10:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Post by samsloan
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
On the last point, Taylor Kingston is clearly wrong. The production
qualities in terms of paper, printing and binding for the San Antonio
1972 book were vastly superior to the production qualities of either
of the books of the twoPiatigorskyCup tournaments.
More Sloan nonsense. The Dover editions of the two Piatigorskiy Cups
were (are, since they are on the shelf in front to me) of high
quality, with sewn-in signatures.
  The hardcover editions from Ward Ritchie Press were even better.
I've had them for over 40 years, and they still look almost as good as
new. I suspect Sam has never seen these, perhaps did not even know of
their existence, thus explaining his fatuous remarks about production
quality and player annotations.
Post by jkh001
 The RHM books showed lower
production values, with the pages glued in only. My copy of San
Antonio 72 is in good shape despite this, but several other RHM books
(e.g. Timman's "Art of Chess Analysis") have had pages come loose over
the years. Never happens with Dover.
Does /anyone/ take this nitwit seriously?
  I certainly don't, but now and then it's fun to point out his gaffes.
I guess you are right. I concede defeat. I will just have to reprint
the twoPiatigorskyCup tournament books too.
Sam Sloan
I in definitely reprinting the book of the First Piatigorsky cup
tournament. I am sending it to my scanner right now.
I will definitely state in the introduction that I owe a great debt to
my faithful correspondents John Hillery and Taylor Kingston, who
inspired me to reprint this book.
Sam Sloan
The original copyright was in the names of Gregor and Jacqueline
Piatigorsky. I doubt Mrs. P is going to care about the money, but if
she did and you pirated the books, she would certainly be capable of
squashing you. It would be nice to see you do the right thing for a
change. Unlikely, of course.
Just A Patzer
2009-10-20 13:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
The original copyright was in the names of Gregor and Jacqueline
Piatigorsky. I doubt Mrs. P is going to care about the money, but if
she did and you pirated the books, she would certainly be capable of
squashing you. It would be nice to see you do the right thing for a
change. Unlikely, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Piatigorsky
samsloan
2009-10-30 02:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Thanks to the inspiration provided by my faithful corespondents John
Hillery and Taylor Kingston, I shall be reprinting both the First
Piatigorsky Cup tournament book and the Second Piatigorsky Cup
Tournament book.

You can expect them out in a few weeks, possibly sooner.

Sam Sloan
I in definitely reprinting the book of theFirstPiatigorskycup
tournament. I am sending it to my scanner right now.
I will definitely state in the introduction that I owe a great debt to
my faithful correspondents John Hillery and Taylor Kingston, who
inspired me to reprint this book.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
2009-10-31 04:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
Thanks to the inspiration provided by my faithful corespondents John
Hillery and Taylor Kingston, I shall be reprinting both the First
Piatigorsky Cup tournament book and the Second Piatigorsky Cup
Tournament book.
You can expect them out in a few weeks, possibly sooner.
Sam Sloan
I in definitely reprinting the book of theFirstPiatigorskycup
tournament. I am sending it to my scanner right now.
I will definitely state in the introduction that I owe a great debt to
my faithful correspondents John Hillery and Taylor Kingston, who
inspired me to reprint this book.
Sam Sloan
It would be nice if Mrs. P told her lawyers to squash the Sloon like a
roach, but I doubt she'll be interested enough to bother. Meanwhile,
buy the Dover edition if you can find it.
samsloan
2009-10-31 12:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by samsloan
Thanks to the inspiration provided by my faithful corespondents John
Hillery and Taylor Kingston, I shall be reprinting both the First
Piatigorsky Cup tournament book and the Second Piatigorsky Cup
Tournament book.
You can expect them out in a few weeks, possibly sooner.
Sam Sloan
I in definitely reprinting the book of theFirstPiatigorskycup
tournament. I am sending it to my scanner right now.
I will definitely state in the introduction that I owe a great debt to
my faithful correspondents John Hillery and Taylor Kingston, who
inspired me to reprint this book.
Sam Sloan
It would be nice if Mrs. P told her lawyers to squash the Sloon like a
roach, but I doubt she'll be interested enough to bother. Meanwhile,
buy the Dover edition if you can find it.
Do you really think that she or anyone would object to having books
about her tournaments which have been out-of-print for more than 40
years reprinted?

Sam Sloan
s***@gmail.com
2018-09-24 22:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by samsloan
San Antonio 1972 was either the strongest chess tournament ever played
in the history of the United States or, if not the very strongest,
then second only to New York 1924.
The tournament was organized by Bill Church, who had a great deal of
money at that time. He had expanded a small fried-chicken chain of
only four outlets that he had inherited from his father into a giant
operation with more than 400 restaurants.
He also established what are now called “Grand Prix Points” where
grandmasters can tour the country playing in small tournaments and win
big prizes awarded to those who collect the most points. These were
known as “Chicken Points” and the “King of the Chicken Circuit” became
Igor Ivanov, who could be counted on to show up at a tournament
somewhere in the country almost every weekend. Ivanov toured the
country with an unlimited Greyhound Bus pass.
Bill Church is still around and the company is still in business. Bill
Church made a cash donation to the US Senior Open Championship held
earlier this year.
The organizers of San Antonio 1972 put together a great collection of
some of the world's leading grandmasters (back then when the
grandmaster title meant something) and combined them with the most
promising young players that North America had to offer.
Four of the top ten rated players in the world participated, including
Petrosian, ranked number 3, Portisch, ranked number 6, Karpov ranked
number 7 and Larsen, ranked number 10. The main ones in the top ten
who did not play were, of course, Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky, who
had just completed their epic chess match for the World Championship
two months earlier.
In addition, every player who came from outside North America was
either a former or a future World Chess Champion or had participated
or would participate in a candidates tournament of the top eight
players in the world to determine the challenger for the next world
championship. Petrosian was a former world champion. Karpov was a
future world champion. Keres, Larsen and Gligoric had all played in
the Candidate's Tournaments. Mecking, Portisch, and Hort were to play
in future candidates matches.
Tigran Petrosian was World Champion from 1966 to 1969. Karpov was to
become World Champion from 1974 to 1984.
Keres had been the number two or number three player in the world (if
not number one) since 1938, although he had fallen down recently.
Combined with this was Walter Browne who was to win the US
Championship eight times, Julio Kaplan, who had been World Junior
Champion and the exciting Duncan Suttles who had invented his own
openings which had become known as the Suttles Systems.
I knew almost all of the players in the tournament. For example, I had
traveled around the country with Duncan Suttles in 1964 sharing rooms
with him while playing in chess tournaments, especially during the
1964 US Open in Boston. I had sort of attached myself to him as I
recognized early his great talent for chess and his unusual and
creative playing style. Unfortunately, although I had often analyzed
chess with him, I had never mastered his Suttles System and every time
I had tried to play it, I lost.
I also knew the one player nobody else knew, Mario Campos Lopez. I had
spent one college semester at the University of Mexico in Mexico City
in the Fall of 1965. Mario Campos Lopez was already regarded as the
best player in Mexico. I played him many five minute games. I did not
win many of the games, although I am sure I won at least one.
Mario Campos Lopez had been invited to play in recognition of the fact
that the tournament was being held in Texas near to Mexico. Similarly,
Ken Smith was invited for being the best player in Texas. I must say
that Mario Campos Lopez did a lot better in this tournament than
anybody but me expected him to. He later won the Championship of
Mexico
I must add here that some of the players were later to become
associated with tragedies. Donald Byrne died in 1976 at the age of 45.
The illness that caused his death was never conclusively diagnosed but
is believed to have been possibly a form of lupus. Donald Byrne was
the nicest man I ever knew who played chess and his early death was a
great loss.
Paul Keres also died in 1976 at the age of 59 and Tigran Petrosian
died in 1984 at only 55. The poor quality of the health care system in
the Soviet Union may have contributed to their early deaths.
Henrique Mecking went on to win two Interzonal tournaments and was
regarded as one of the strongest players in the world. However, he
then became ill and dropped out of chess although he has come back and
played some recently.
The great success of this tournament was Duncan Suttles, who earned
the grandmaster title (back when the grandmaster title meant
something) in this event by beating Evans, Kaplan, Campos, Saidy and
Smith. As I had traveled with Suttles a lot, I knew a lot about the
way he played. For example, he often said that the strongest place for
the black king knight was at king's bishop two. His Suttles System for
black often involved playing an early f6, followed by Nh6 and Nf7.
This really threw off his opponents, who were used to facing
traditional style moves. Suttles played his strange moves based on
great strategic concepts he had developed. As a result, Suttles just
mopped up anybody rated less than 2300. Lower rated players faced a
quick death when meeting Suttles.
His problem was that the higher rated players could see through his
tactics. Anybody rated over 2400 usually beat him. He got into the
1965-1966 US Championship and was almost completely wiped out as he
finished last with 2.5 out of 11.
However, eventually he perfected his Suttles' Systems and started
beating grandmasters with it. In San Antonio 1972 he demonstrated that
he could hold his own against the higher rated grandmasters while
still wiping out the relatively lower rated. This got him the
Grandmaster title.
What makes this book especially great is not merely was it a great
tournament with great players, but that the players annotated some of
their own games. In this day and age, there are millions of games in
the chess databases, but annotated games are increasingly hard to
find.
This book has games annotated by Karpov, Larsen, Hort, Suttles,
Mecking, Donald Byrne, Gligoric, Keres, Saidy, Portisch, Kaplan, Evans
and Smith. Two games were annotated by both Larsen and Petrosian. In
addition, many of the games were annotated by International Master
David Levy.
This book also marks the beginning of a great series of books: the RHM
Series. San Antonio 1972 was the first of many high quality chess
books published by RHM.
This RHM Series of high quality chess books was the brain child of
Sidney Fried (born 22 June 1919 – died 1 June 1991). Sidney Fried was
not a strong player but was an aficionado or big fan of chess.
Sidney Fried had a lot of money. He had made his fortune in common
stock purchase warrants. Then, he made more money writing books and
two newsletters about it. His stock market books are still available
today, including such works as “Investment and Speculation with
Warrants - Options & Convertibles” and “Fortune building in the 70's
with common stock warrants and low-price stocks” by Sidney Fried.
Fried had a number of unusual habits, one of which was that he owned
nothing. He put everything he owned into his corporations, R H M
Press, a Division of RHM Associates of Delaware, Inc.
Fried was a member of the Libertarian Party. Since Fried had no
assets, this enabled him to get away with not paying any taxes.
However, upon his death it was discovered that he had left no will and
therefore nothing, including his New York townhouse, his personal home
on Long Island, his yacht and his California estate that were owned by
his corporations could be inherited.
This also affected the publication of this book. It appears that all
of his RHM books were “Work Made for Hire” books, in which he paid the
authors in cash rather than signing standard royalty agreements. This
certainly simplified matters. It enabled his books to have numerous
authors, translators and editors, and a chief editor, Burt Hochberg
(1933-2006). Hochberg wrote, “grandmasters were very well paid to
write them.” Imagine the difficulties of dividing royalty payments
among the many contributors and the even bigger problems of trying to
negotiate royalty deals with different people. (For example, “I demand
to be paid as much as Petrosian!!!”)
Eventually, Sidney Fried lost a lot of money the same way he had made
it, gambling on stock market purchase options and warrants. It is not
clear whether he died broke or nearly broke, but in any case he left
behind a great series of chess books that we can still read today and
remember him by.
This book was originally published in Descriptive Chess Notation.
Since that time, Descriptive has become almost obsolete. For that
reason, all 120 games in this book have been converted into modern
Algebraic Notation and are included in an appendix in the back of the
book.
The games in the back are grouped and sorted alphabetically according
to the player of the white pieces. Thus, all games in which Browne
played White are first, followed by the games by Byrne, Campos-Lopez,
Evans, Gligoric, Hort, Kaplan, Karpov, Keres, Larsen, Mecking,
Petrosian, Portisch, Saidy and Smith in that order.
Sam Sloan
October 11, 2009
ISBN 4-87187-814-7
978-4-87187-814-2
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4871878147
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?box=9784871878142&pos=-1&EAN=9784871878142
I’m not very internet or computer savvy but i’m Giving this a try
My husband has an original score card from this 1972 tournament.
We’re not sure how he came to posses this but it’s blank and just sitting in our home. I have no idea how to go about getting it to a person who might appreciate its historical significance.
We are not familiar with the chess community. Please feel free to share my email with anyone who may provide me with suggestions on how i might get this document to an perso
Or organization who would know what to do with it.
***@gmail.com. Thank you

Loading...