Pre-1996 Lifetime High Ratings

[Fred McKim]

Erik and Fred: I have the greatest respect for you two gentlemen and the amount of work you've done on this issue, but personally I don't see the point. I gather that comparing ratings of different periods is fraught with difficulty if not theoretically impossible; I am glad that FIDE has not tried to formally award titles to the likes of Lasker or Capablanca. Why try to project our standards back into the nineteenth century? Let the likes of Hicks, Howe, and Ascher be known through their games and results, warts and all, rather than being pigeon-holed by us.

As a historian, I thought you might appreciate the effort to bring some of these elite Canadian player's names to be brought forward for modern consideration.

Why do baseball enthusiasts love Bill James stuff ?

[Stephen Wright]

As a historian, I thought you might appreciate the effort to bring some of these elite Canadian player's names to be brought forward for modern consideration.

For me it's like comparing apples and oranges. What makes Magnus Smith memorable is winning the Canadian Championship three times in a row (on the only three occasions he competed!), not whether he was a NM or had a rating over 2300.

Why do baseball enthusiasts love Bill James stuff ?

Dunno, I don't know who that is.

[Fred McKim]

For me it's like comparing apples and oranges. What makes Magnus Smith memorable is winning the Canadian Championship three times in a row (on the only three occasions he competed!), not whether he was a NM or had a rating over 2300.



Dunno, I don't know who that is.

I have an interest in putting numbers and results to different uses. Certainly Magnus Smith is no ordinary master level player in Canadian Chess Annals.

[Erik Malmsten]

Erik and Fred: I have the greatest respect for you two gentlemen and the amount of work you've done on this issue, but personally I don't see the point. I gather that comparing ratings of different periods is fraught with difficulty if not theoretically impossible; I am glad that FIDE has not tried to formally award titles to the likes of Lasker or Capablanca. Why try to project our standards back into the nineteenth century? Let the likes of Hicks, Howe, and Ascher be known through their games and results, warts and all, rather than being pidgeon-holed by us.

Thank you for your comments on this issue. Your webpage of Canadian Championship crosstables is the source of historical accomplishment.

I like to look at stats and ratings, but it is taking time away from my project of acquiring source material from newspaper columns. The point for me is to have on the CFC website a permanent recognition of the top players in Canadian history. The list of Canadian Champions is too large a scroll. The list of recent Canadian masters is also too large a list to browse, but there is a shorter list of IMs and GMs. I like the division by province, to get that region's historical masters noticed. It would be nice in the future to have a CFC magazine series of articles and perhaps a webpage for each historic master with their games and results. Most do receive recognition in David Cohen's Hall of Fame. But there are a few who success has disappeared. I did have a biography of one (Draxl) published in the CFC newsletter, but that issue has passed. I had submitted another biography of another unknown master, but it hasn't been published. Perhaps the market for readers of ancient games is very small.

We are recognizing today's masters (not that I heard of anyone of them wanting to have a Canadian master title). It is fair to equally recognize the masters who are no longer around.

[Erik Malmsten]

Erik and Fred: I have the greatest respect for you two gentlemen and the amount of work you've done on this issue, but personally I don't see the point. I gather that comparing ratings of different periods is fraught with difficulty if not theoretically impossible; I am glad that FIDE has not tried to formally award titles to the likes of Lasker or Capablanca. Why try to project our standards back into the nineteenth century? Let the likes of Hicks, Howe, and Ascher be known through their games and results, warts and all, rather than being pidgeon-holed by us.

Thank you for your comments on this issue. Your webpage of Canadian Championship crosstables is the source of historical accomplishment.

I like to look at stats and ratings, but it is taking time away from my project of acquiring source material from newspaper columns. The point for me is to have on the CFC website a permanent recognition of the top players in Canadian history. The list of Canadian Champions is too large a scroll. The list of recent Canadian masters is also too large a list to browse, but there is a shorter list of IMs and GMs. I like the division by province, to get that region's historical masters noticed. It would be nice in the future to have a CFC magazine series of articles and perhaps a webpage for each historic master with their games and results. Most do receive recognition in David Cohen's Hall of Fame. But there are a few who success has disappeared. I did have a biography of one (Draxl) published in the CFC newsletter, but that issue has passed. I had submitted another biography of another unknown master, but it hasn't been published. Perhaps the market for readers of ancient games is very small.

We are recognizing today's masters (not that I heard of anyone of them wanting to have a Canadian master title). It is fair to equally recognize the masters who are no longer around.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

It is fair to equally recognize the masters who are no longer around.

It does mean we should create masters of old days. Long time ago (~1947) FIDE did not honored deceased players with GM titles. IMHO, it was a good decision. It does not mean we should forget players who played before even we were born.

[Fred McKim]

Thank you for your comments on this issue. Your webpage of Canadian Championship crosstables is the source of historical accomplishment.

I like to look at stats and ratings, but it is taking time away from my project of acquiring source material from newspaper columns. The point for me is to have on the CFC website a permanent recognition of the top players in Canadian history. The list of Canadian Champions is too large a scroll. The list of recent Canadian masters is also too large a list to browse, but there is a shorter list of IMs and GMs. I like the division by province, to get that region's historical masters noticed. It would be nice in the future to have a CFC magazine series of articles and perhaps a webpage for each historic master with their games and results. Most do receive recognition in David Cohen's Hall of Fame. But there are a few who success has disappeared. I did have a biography of one (Draxl) published in the CFC newsletter, but that issue has passed. I had submitted another biography of another unknown master, but it hasn't been published. Perhaps the market for readers of ancient games is very small.

We are recognizing today's masters (not that I heard of anyone of them wanting to have a Canadian master title). It is fair to equally recognize the masters who are no longer around.

Eric. You might try rebubmitting your article, now that we have a new editor.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Erik and others,

Do you have an older than 1972 CFC rating list(s)?

[Fred McKim]

Erik and others,

Do you have an older than 1972 CFC rating list(s)?

I think Eric has the annual rating lists going back to 1966. They were most likely published in Canadian Chess Chat back then. Probably somebody like Ken MacDonald has a complete set.

I went to the National Archives, while in Ottawa, in the spring, and tried to compile a list (from the CFC crosstables, housed there) of those with year-end ratings 2150+ from 1955 until 1972.

These won't line up exactly with the Official Annual ratings, but depending on what you want to use it for, might do the trick.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

depending on what you want to use it for, might do the trick.

I think to play with numbers/players/ratings. Thus, I prefer to have a complete list.

from the CFC crosstables

It might be a good idea to convert them to e-versions that they would be available to others too