Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Pre-1996 Lifetime High Ratings

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,976
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    I think to play with numbers/players/ratings. Thus, I prefer to have a complete list.



    It might be a good idea to convert them to e-versions that they would be available to others too
    I would think more value would be had by scanning all of the previous year's chess magazines.

    Accessing the archives would require somebody in Ottawa with unlimited time to photocopy all of the CFC crosstables stored there (about 15 good sized boxes worth), and then take them somewhere and scan them.

    I think that the crosstables there only go up to the mid-80's. There must be about 10-12 additional years worth of crosstables that are in storage at the CFC somewhere (maybe).

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I would think more value would be had by scanning all of the previous year's chess magazines.
    Ok. I'll do the first one, you'll take rest
    I discussed with several people about converting them to PDFs. There are two concerns - legal issues, and personal (I have them thus not much interest for tedious work
    .*-1

  3. #33

    Default chesmetrics for 1950-60s

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    There is a good question as to how accurate really are the EDO ratings. As an example since he doesn't tie these ratings in with any current ratings (and they only go to the early 20th century), it's specualation. If you consider Chessmetrics, Sonas ties all of the ratings together with one reasonable looking list from 1900 to 2005. Taking the chessmetrics ratings for the top 10 players rated on both lists for 1895 and 1905, the average is about 135 points difference with Chessmetrics being higher.

    The only Canadian players I can find are Pollack and MacLeod and they too, are in this same range. So my inclination would be to add 125 points to the EDO ratings if you are interested in using a lifetime achievement of 2300 as a measure.

    Chessmetrics [CM] has some good points like pointing out players who have played in other countries before coming to Canada. But their ratings are higher than CFC of the same time period. And they rate very few events, and not the Canadian Championships. The CFC level for master was 2300.

    Maurice Fox
    CM 1956 2503
    USCF 1951 2306
    CFC 1955 2180

    Ross Siemms
    CM 1955 2436
    CFC 1955 2240

    Paul Vaitonis
    CM 1958 2518
    CFC 1955 2375

    Géza Füster
    CM 1954 2515
    CFC 1954 2200
    CM 1958 2375
    CFC 1957 2313

    Daniel Yanofsky
    CM 1956 2528
    CFC 1955 2455

    Frank Anderson
    CM 1956 2554
    CFC 1955 2455

    Heinz Matthai
    CM 1956 2385
    CFC 1957 2208

    Harry Yanofsky
    CM 1959 2521
    CFC 1957 2122

    Elod Macskasy
    CM 1961 2462
    CFC 1961 2377

    Lionel Joyner
    CM 1965 2467
    CFC 1964 2358

    Zvonko Vranesic
    CM 1964 2380
    CFC 1964 2358

    Duncan Suttles
    CM 1966 2410
    CFC 1966 2265

    Lawrence Day
    CM 1968 2396
    CFC 1968 2216

    Denis Allan
    CM 1969 2435
    CFC 1969 2212

    Mark Schulman
    CM 1970 2511
    CFC 1971 2187

    Players in top 100 in the world:

    John Morrison
    Jan 1920 2469 High (22th in the world)

    Fedor Bohatirchuk
    Dec 1925 2604 (19th in the world)

    Maurice Fox
    Sept 1931 2470 high (84th in the world)

    Géza Füster
    Jun 1942 2530 high (73th in the world)

    Daniel Yanofsky
    Oct 1939 2540 (85th in the world)
    Dec 1946 2618 (31st in the world)

    Frank Anderson
    Nov 1958 2612 high (50th in the world)

    Zvonko Vranesic
    Sep 1971 2593 high (79th in the world)

    Duncan Suttles
    Jan 1970 2600 high (65th in the world)

  4. #34

    Default CFC masters 1950s-60s

    My picks for Canadian Masters 1939-1972

    (John S. Morrison ON 1920)
    (Maurice Fox PQ 1927)

    1939 [Olympiad]
    Daniel Yanofsky MB
    (John S. Morrison ON)
    Haakon Opsahl ON
    Walter Holowach ON

    1945 [CanCh]
    Frank Yerhoff SK
    Nathan Divinsky MB
    John Belson ON

    1946 [CanCh]
    Robert Martin ON
    Joseph Rauch PQ

    1947 [CanCh]
    Rea Hayes ON

    1949 [CanCh]
    Dr. Feodor Bohatirchuk ON
    Frank Anderson ON

    1951 [CanCh]
    Povilas Vaitonis ON

    (1952 [Interzonal]
    Povilas Vaitonis ON)

    (1954 [CFC Ratings]
    Frank Anderson ON)

    (1954 [Oly]
    Frank Anderson ON
    Povilas Vaitonis ON
    Dr. Feodor Bohatirchuk ON
    Maurice Fox PQ)

    1955 [CanCh]
    Lionel Joyner PQ
    Ross Siemms ON

    1957 [CFC Ratings]
    Geza Fuster ON

    1957 [CanCh]
    Geza Fuster ON
    Miervaldis Jursevskis BC

    (1958 [Inter]
    Geza Fuster ON)

    (1958 [CFC Ratings]
    Lionel Joyner PQ
    Ross Siemms ON)

    1961 [CFC Rating]
    Elod Macskasy BC
    Zvonko Vranesic ON
    Rudolf Draxl ON

    (1961 [CanCh]
    Zvonko Vranesic ON)

    (1963 [CanCh]
    Elod Macskasy BC)

    1964 [CFC Rating]
    Joel Williams PQ
    Leslie Witt PQ

    (1964 [Inter]
    Zvonko Vranesic ON)

    1966 [Oly]
    Duncan Suttles BC
    Andrew Kalotay ON
    (Nathan Divinsky MB)

    1966 [CFC Rating]
    Dr. T. Ackermann PQ

    1967 [CFC Rating]
    Ivan Theodorovitch ON

    (1967 [Inter]
    Duncan Suttles BC)

    1968 [Olympiad]
    Denis Allan ON
    Lawrence Day ON
    Mark Schulman MB

    1969 [CanCh]
    Bruce Amos ON

    (1969 [CFC Rating]
    Lawrence Day ON
    Denis Allan ON)

    (1970 [Oly]
    Bruce Amos ON
    Leslie Witt PQ)

    1970 [CFC Rating]
    Camille Coudari PQ

    1971 [CFC Rating]
    (Bruce Amos ON)
    Robert Zuk BC
    Peter Biyiasis BC
    Walter Dobrich ON
    George Kuprejanov ON
    Leon Piasetski PQ

    (1972 [Oly]
    Peter Biyiasis BC)

    1972 [CFC Rating]
    Ed Formanek ON

    Maybe enough games:
    Heinz Matthai 1955-57
    Alex Siklos PQ 1961-2
    F Furstner PQ 1961-2
    GT Rubin PQ 1967-8
    A Zaradic BC 1970-1
    John MacPhail ON 1972
    Paul Selick NB 1972


    In this list I accepted a score of 2/3 in the Canadian Championships, equal to today's FM score. Also being on the Olympiad team. It's often a choice of what year to declare them a Canadian master.

    There was a CFC rating system starting in 1954 before settling on ELO in 1964. With the help of Ken MacDonald I found lists in Canadian Chess Chat for 1954, 55, 57, 61, 62, 64 and Jan 1966 (I may be missing some). In the first list they gave recognition to many of the old leaders by listing them as 2100, below master (2300). On that first list there were only 4 masters. Looking for a player reaching 2300 (8 players) or 3 consecutive annual listings over 2200 (only 2 players). After 1966 when quarterly lists were published, 4 consecutive lists over 2200 to count as fudgy 24 games, but tournament results need to be counted for an accurate total of 24. Note that top players like Fuster and Vaitonis had fallen to an expert rating most of the time and new players like Dobrich and Kuprejanov went up and down over the 2200 line. Olympiad team members Kalotay (2180) and Schulman (2187) never had a master rating.

    In the first 1951 USCF lists Maurice Fox [Canadian Champion 1927+] was the only Canadian who made a Master rating (2304) and two ex-Canadians were masters, George Eastman (Canadian co-Champion 1931), 2333, and Boris Blumin (Canadian Champion 1936 & 7). And Yanofsky [Canadian Champion 1941+] was certainly a master with international experience. It could also be argued that as Fox and Morrison (Canadian Champion 1910+) were invited to international events that they were also masters in the 1920s.

    Bohatirchuk, Vaitonis and Fuster came to Canada having already played in international competition. I think having experience playing against other masters is crucial in becoming a master. After 1969 players could get a 2200 FIDE rating, usually from playing in the Canadian Closed, should that make them a Canadian master?

    1939 Olympiad:
    John Stuart Morrison
    Daniel Yanofsky
    Haakon Opsahl
    Walter Holowach
    (not Abraham Helman, reserve only 3 games)

    1954 Olympiad:
    Yanofsky, Anderson, Vaitonis, Bohatirchuk, Fox, ( Divinsky, reserve only 1 game).

    1958 Olympiad:
    Yanofsky, Anderson, Vaitonis, Fuster, Joyner, Siemms

    1964 Olympiad:
    Yanofsky, Anderson, Vranesic, Macskasy, Suttles, Witt

    1966 Olympiad:
    Yanofsky, Vranesic, Witt, Suttles, Kalotay, Divinsky

    1970 Olympiad:
    Yanofsky, Suttles, Vranesic, Witt, Amos, Fuster

    1972 Olympiad:
    Suttles, Yanofsky, Vranesic, Biyiasas, Amos, Day

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nanaimo, BC
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Malmsten View Post
    My picks for Canadian Masters 1939-1972


    1964 [CFC Rating]
    Joel Williams PQ

    1971 [CFC Rating]

    Peter Biyiasis BC

    In this list I accepted a score of 2/3 in the Canadian Championships, equal to today's FM score. Also being on the Olympiad team. It's often a choice of what year to declare them a Canadian master.
    Maybe Noel Williams, not Joel. Definitely Biyiasas. Last I heard, 2/3 was an IM score, and has been since 1969 for Canadian Championships when they were Zonals. I wouldn't make inclusion on the Olympiad team a criterion. Then, like now, mysterious omissions could be the norm. "We tried to get in touch with you." So it could perpetuate an injustice. Also, there may have been instances where a player could not afford to take the time off work, or the inclusion could have been the result of the last-minute unavailability of another player (me in 1982, for example). If you base it on a performance rating or a result in an Olympiad(s), sure. But then you return to the question of how to evaluate those performances. Sometimes the Closed was the crème, sometimes it was winter milk. Using a 2/3 Plimsoll Line does not do justice to those differences.
    JMS+ 1 p1.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Berry View Post
    Maybe Noel Williams, not Joel. Definitely Biyiasas. Last I heard, 2/3 was an IM score, and has been since 1969 for Canadian Championships when they were Zonals. I wouldn't make inclusion on the Olympiad team a criterion. Then, like now, mysterious omissions could be the norm. "We tried to get in touch with you." So it could perpetuate an injustice. Also, there may have been instances where a player could not afford to take the time off work, or the inclusion could have been the result of the last-minute unavailability of another player (me in 1982, for example). If you base it on a performance rating or a result in an Olympiad(s), sure. But then you return to the question of how to evaluate those performances. Sometimes the Closed was the crème, sometimes it was winter milk. Using a 2/3 Plimsoll Line does not do justice to those differences.
    Thanks for your input, Jonathan. I think a couple of times Lawrence Day was a last minute Olympiad player. For these years I think the 2/3 score is an indication of master strength as these players tended to become rated masters. But I agree that there were weak years and weaker players sent to the Olympiad. By 1980 the Canadian Championships were a master event.

    The problem with just sticking to CFC ratings is how to list players before 1954? Edo is available up to 1910, between we have internationally recognized Morrison and Fox with chessmetric ratings. But there are, debatably, another half dozen players who could be considered to be Canadian masters.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    27

    Default

    The term master has meant different things in different eras, and the criteria for obtaining such a title have changed. I think we have to go by the usage of the time - over 2200 or 2300 for the modern/ratings era, but something different for earlier periods. I'm not aware of much use of the term master in early Canadian literature, and there doesn't seem to have been any formal means of winning the title (assuming it was recognized). [In Germany there were the Hauptturnier - according to Edo when Lasker and Tarrasch won the master title in 1889 and 1883 respectively their ratings at the time were 2645 and 2557, just a tad above our baseline 2200.] I just glanced through Yanofsky's 100 Years of Chess in Canada, published in 1967, and despite the fact ratings were certainly being used by then I find it very revealing how Yanofsky uses the terms "master" and "expert" - nearly always in a generalized sense, and certainly not with the connotation of over 2200 or over 2000.

    For pre-1954 I think it is sufficient to indicate the leading players of the day, rather than trying to equate them with the modern term "master" (no one calls Morphy or Blackburne a GM, although that's obviously what they were in our usage). So is it OK to present a list of "Leading Historical Players," based on acknowledged accomplishments (e.g., placing in the Canadian Championship multiple times), rather than using the term "masters" for these players?

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Wright View Post
    The term master has meant different things in different eras, and the criteria for obtaining such a title have changed. I think we have to go by the usage of the time - over 2200 or 2300 for the modern/ratings era, but something different for earlier periods. I'm not aware of much use of the term master in early Canadian literature, and there doesn't seem to have been any formal means of winning the title (assuming it was recognized). [In Germany there were the Hauptturnier - according to Edo when Lasker and Tarrasch won the master title in 1889 and 1883 respectively their ratings at the time were 2645 and 2557, just a tad above our baseline 2200.] I just glanced through Yanofsky's 100 Years of Chess in Canada, published in 1967, and despite the fact ratings were certainly being used by then I find it very revealing how Yanofsky uses the terms "master" and "expert" - nearly always in a generalized sense, and certainly not with the connotation of over 2200 or over 2000.

    For pre-1954 I think it is sufficient to indicate the leading players of the day, rather than trying to equate them with the modern term "master" (no one calls Morphy or Blackburne a GM, although that's obviously what they were in our usage). So is it OK to present a list of "Leading Historical Players," based on acknowledged accomplishments (e.g., placing in the Canadian Championship multiple times), rather than using the term "masters" for these players?
    That's a sound idea, leading historic players before 1954, 2300 1954 to 1965,
    2200 afterwards. Now left is proving 24 games for each master.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •