Jump to content

Talk:Claude Bloodgood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ratings

[edit]

I think is not possible he where in the rating sistem of Virginia in the late 1950, while chess rating sistem ELO it wasn't stablished till 1960. (unsigned, 9 November 2006)

The rating system used by the United States Chess Federation before 1960 was developed by Kenneth Harkness. Arpad Elo's statistical system was scaled to approximately match previously obtained ratings. --Wfaxon 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several times now I've edited the ridiculous conjectures about him being a USCF expert (2000-2199) by strength, or most ridiculously, a senior master. (2400+) I'm an actual USCF expert and chess teacher with a rating of 2029, and I've looked at several of Bloodgood's games. Not just any games either, but ones he analyzed and was particularly proud of in his books, considering them "brilliancies". Said games feature numerous basic blunders and Bloodgood hanging pieces, or missing hanging pieces from his opponent. Being EXTREMELY charitable, Bloodgood was perhaps 1400 strength. Frankly though, I think he was probably closer to 1000-1100 Elo strength. I don't care that some random guy who met and became friends with him (Don Wedding) said he might have been really strong. Wedding was himself an awful player based on the games with Bloodgood he provides in that link. (One where he blunders mate in one in a CORRESPONDENCE game) This is also the same guy who believed a number of other Bloodgood lies, like him supposedly being born in 1924 (contradicted by birth certificates and Bloodgood's own family), or born in Germany. (ditto) So enough of the wild and inaccurate speculation on Bloodgood's strength. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)ChessPlayerLev[reply]

Confusion in article about ratings and rating organizations

[edit]

Apart from all the other issues about rating systems in place in what year and all the rest, the article also confuses different rating authorities. The retirement rating for Fischer given is an FIDE rating not a USCF rating. (Also worth noting instead is Fischer's peak FIDE rating of 2785 immediately after his two 6-0 match wins. The given number, if correct, means Fischer actually lost points winning over Petrosian (6½–2½ (+5−1=3)) and Spassky (12½–8½ (+7 -3 =11)) I have Chess Life and Review copies from the era that give Fischer's USCF rating in 1972 as something over 2800 which could not have declined as he played no further games in a USCF rated event (apart apparently from a single game, a win over Saidy) after his last US Championship in 1967, the rest being FIDE events such as the USSR vs the Rest of the World, the Siegen Olympiad and the 1972 world championship cycle for which he did not qualify in a USCF event but by Pal Benko arranging to give up his third place spot from the US Championship Zonal. Jszigeti (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jewish tag?

[edit]

what reference suggests that he was jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) In fact, one of the references indicates that his father was a member of the Nazi party so I am removing the jewish chess player tag--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother/stepmother

[edit]

The article had previously asserted that Bloodgood had murdered his "stepmother". Goldenband corrected that, rightly, to "mother," saying that he thought the stepmother story was a tall tale of Bloodgood's. That is essentially right. Bloodgood told author J. C. Hallman, "I was convicted of the murder of Margaret Bloodgood, who was my father's second wife." J.C. Hallman, The Chess Artist: Genius, Obsession, and the World's Oldest Game, p. 278. Indeed he was, but Bloodgood's father's second wife was also Bloodgood's mother. Id., p. 284. Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch of Bloodgood's white lie; sounds like he was a clever and slipperly fellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.142.95 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing two more moves that end in mate is better than resigning?

[edit]

"The program also says that after 19...Kd8 20.Qa5 Ke8 21.Rh7 mate is better."

Better than what? Resigning? Black resigned on move 19. The computer says playing two moves is better than resigning straightaway?

So Fritz calculates playing Kd8 leading to being checkmated in two moves anyway is better than resigning immediately?

Hahahahahaha. Too funny. You Wikipedia kidders... Anonywiki (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that it was a better move for White. Black didn't have to resign. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear that 19...Kd8 was referring to Bloodgood's analysis starting with 16...fe, not the actual game. In other words, 20. Qa5 Ke8 21.Rh7 mate improves on Bloodgood's suggestion of 20. Rf8. Since the king ends up on g8 in the actual game (making 19...Kd8 impossible), I'm surprised that people were confused by this. I'll revert the recent edit presently. Goldenband (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuohy Article is not a Credible Source

[edit]

I don't even know where to begin with this article. It's wildly biased, inaccurate, and relies entirely too much on Claude Bloodgood's lies, which have been well-documented by others on the talk page, and even in the article itself. (Claiming his mother was really his "step-mother", claiming a different birth year than what was on his birth certificate, claiming to be a Nazi spy, claiming to be born in Germany and later, Mexico, etc.)

Firstly, they present horribly-played games brimming with awful blunders as something impressive (I say this as a USCF rated expert, but if you need further reference, just take a look at the Chessgames discussion and computer analysis of the 1958 Bloodgood, C. - Trefzer game)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272235

But most annoyingly, the tone ranges from severely biased to outright wrong. Check out this statement, for instance;

'"Yeah, read’em and weep, pal: 2702. That meant that Claude F. Bloodgood (aka prisoner no. 99432) was (1) a super Grand Master, (2) rated no. 2 in the U.S. (some joker named Gata Kamsky stole first place), and (3) entitled to a place on the U.S. Olympic chess team.

As far back as 1958, Bloodgood had warned USCF officials of a serious statistical flaw in their rating system (an “inflation error” resulting from “closed pool sampling” ) ~ but who the heck’s gonna listen to a guy who plays the Grob? And so nothing was done… Until Bloodgood became a GM – under their system."''

Sure, the statement about Gata Kamsky is clearly sarcasm, but the tone is silly, and moreover, it's just plain wrong. Bloodgood never "became a GM under their system". USCF doesn't even hand out the grandmaster title! They're simply a national chess federation for the United States. It's only FIDE, the international chess federation, that hands out the grandmaster title. Bloodgood has never played in any FIDE-rated events, and doesn't appear on their website.

Furthermore, the GM title is awarded for grandmaster norms in specific international tournaments, not for rating, however high.

So even if we make the (incorrect) assumption that Bloodgood obtained his rating in a completely fair and honest manner, this rating would in no way, shape, or form make him eligible for the GM title.

I could go on and on with the mistakes in the article. If people are interested in learning more about Claude Bloodgood, I think they can do much better than such a biased, inaccurate article written by someone with a very warped POV.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tactical Grob

[edit]

The ebook was downloadable from Chessville, but now the site is closed. An alternative link is: www.teutoburgo.tk/scacchi/articoliScacchi.html#grob I tried to add the link but the one to Chessville has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.232.5 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Bloodgood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claude Bloodgood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rating

[edit]

asterisk/disclaimer should be put on his rating/the infobox 216.164.249.213 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claude_Bloodgood&oldid=1206339829"