🚀 go-pugleaf

Alan OBrien wrote:
> "Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04...
> >I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer noted
> >that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
>
> I have seen him and he is probably about 4 foot 10". He is a hell of a short
> guy.

  4'10", seriously? I've sometimes thought about who was the greatest
chess player for his size. They used to call "Sugar" Ray Robinson "the
greatest boxer pound for pound," but who was the greatest chess player
inch for inch? Some obvious candidates would include Morphy, Steinitz,
Reshevsky, Fine and Karpov. Some other contenders could be Kotov,
Gheorghiu, Sultan Khan or Kupchik. Weren't Tal and Capablanca also on
the small side? And how tall is Short?

> It is hard for me to tell because I am 7ft 9"!

  At the other end of the scale we have Alekhine, Euwe, Fischer,
Kramnik, and Donner, all well over 6 feet, IIRC. But it sounds like
Alan has them beat hollow, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar and Shaq O'Neal.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Alan OBrien wrote:
> > "Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04...
> > > I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer
> > > noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?

If I recall correctly, Bill Brock has written
that he's about 5 feet 3 1/2 inches tall.

> > I have seen him and he is probably about 4 foot 10".
> > He is a hell of a short guy.
>
> 4'10", seriously? I've sometimes thought about who was the greatest
> chess player for his size.  They used to call "Sugar" Ray Robinson

Perhaps Ray Gordon should be called "'Silicon' Ray Gordon". :-)

> "the greatest boxer pound for pound," but who was the greatest chess player
> inch for inch? Some obvious candidates would include Morphy, Steinitz,
> Reshevsky, Fine and Karpov.  Some other contenders could be Kotov,
> Gheorghiu, Sultan Khan or Kupchik. Weren't Tal and Capablanca also
> on the small side? And how tall is Short?
>
> > It is hard for me to tell because I am 7ft 9"!
>
> At the other end of the scale we have Alekhine, Euwe,
> Fischer, Kramnik, and Donner, all well over 6 feet, IIRC.

Bu Xiangzhi's also quite tall.

> But it sounds like Alan has them beat hollow, along with
> Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Shaq O'Neal.

Yao Ming's listed as 229 cm (7 feet 6 inches) tall.

--Nick

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:28:09 -0400, EZoto <ezoto@eznet4u.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:17:23 -0700, "Ian Burton"
><notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote:
>
>>I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer noted
>>that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
>>
>>Just curious.
>
>Bruce Lee was 5'4".

What counts is air time.

>
>EZoto

"Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in message
news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04...
>I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer noted
>that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?

I have seen him and he is probably about 4 foot 10". He is a hell of a short
guy. It is hard for me to tell because I am 7ft 9"!

"I was heartbroken when I learned that Lawrence of Arabia was
five-foot-
three. It's just not natural. "  (Wilma}
===============
   General Eddie Richenbacher was a very short man.  Most of Britian's
RAF fighter pilots were small men due to limitations of the cockpits.
The ideal size for a US paratrooper is about 5'6' or so.  They say
smaller men tend to move about quickly and more quietly during infantry
combat. Many Mexican males are small men.  Properly trained and well
led, the Mexicans are outstanding infantryment, as good as any.  And,
of course, we have the Vietnamese example. 


..

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:17:23 -0700, "Ian Burton"
<notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote:

>I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer noted
>that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
>
>Just curious.

Bruce Lee was 5'4".

EZoto

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I was heartbroken when I learned that Lawrence of Arabia was five-foot-
three. It's just not natural.

Wilma


"Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in
news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04:

> I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer
> noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
>
> Just curious.

02.06.2006 02:23, Nick:
>
> Yao Ming's listed as 229 cm (7 feet 6 inches) tall.

Then Eric Idle must be *much* taller than I thought, as Yao Ming only
comes up to his knees.

Greetings,
Ralf

01.06.2006 17:17, Ian Burton:
> I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer noted
> that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?

Just as a remark: 5'4'' is about 162 cm.

Greetings,
Ralf

Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote:
> 02.06.2006 02:23, Nick:
>> Yao Ming's listed as 229 cm (7 feet 6 inches) tall.
>
> Then Eric Idle must be *much* taller than I thought, as Yao Ming only
> comes up to his knees.

But he's wise and he's witty and he's ready to please.


Dave.

--
David Richerby                           Simple Metal Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/      refreshing lager that's made of steel
                                         but it has no moving parts!

Ralf Callenberg  <ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote:
> 01.06.2006 17:17, Ian Burton:
>> I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a
>> kibitzer noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is
>> this true?
>
> Just as a remark: 5'4'' is about 162 cm.

And 137cm is only 4'6".


Dave.

--
David Richerby                             Happy Apple (TM): it's like a tasty
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/        fruit that makes your troubles melt
                                           away!

RSHaas@aol.com wrote:
> "I was heartbroken when I learned that Lawrence of Arabia
> was five-foot-three. It's just not natural. "  (Wilma}

In David Lean's film, the character of T.E. Lawrence
('Lawrence of Arabia) was played by Peter O'Toole,
who's 191 cm (6'3'') tall.

> General Eddie Richenbacher was a very short man.
> Most of Britian's RAF fighter pilots were small men due
> to limitations of the cockpits.

In the Second World War, American fighter aeroplane
cockpits (particularly for the Republic P-47 'Thunderbolt')
tended to be the largest among the major combatants'.

> The ideal size for a US paratrooper is about 5'6' or so.
> They say smaller men tend to move about quickly and
> more quietly during infantry combat.  Many Mexican
> males are small men.

Some Mexican boxers in the lower weight classes
are outstanding.

> Properly trained and well led, the Mexicans are outstanding
> infantryment, as good as any.  And, of course, we have the
> Vietnamese example.

Nepal's Gurkha soldiers are supposed to have an average
height of about 160 cm (5'3'') or so.   The Gurkhas also have
a fearsome reputation for their prowess in close combat.

--Nick

EZoto wrote:
> Bruce Lee was 5'4".

I doubt that's a factually accurate statement.

According to what I can recall of the published articles
and books that I have read about him, Bruce Lee was taller,
at least 5 feet 7 inches, than EZoto's figure.

The Internet Movie Database lists Bruce Lee's height
as 171 cm (5 feet 7 1/2 inches).

>From what I can recall reading, when Bruce Lee was
a student at the University of Washington, he taught
some classes in martial arts or self-defence techniques.
Some physically larger men refused to believe that a
rather small Chinese man could be an expert in what
he did, and so they challenged or provoked him
(sometimes by racist taunts) into fighting them.
Then the extent to which Bruce Lee would beat them
up depended on how much he felt offended by them.

--Nick

Uzytkownik <RSHaas@aol.com> napisal w wiadomosci 
news:1149228948.856969.125200@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "I was heartbroken when I learned that Lawrence of Arabia was
> five-foot-
> three. It's just not natural. "  (Wilma}
> ===============
>   General Eddie Richenbacher was a very short man.  Most of Britian's
> RAF fighter pilots were small men due to limitations of the cockpits.
> The ideal size for a US paratrooper is about 5'6' or so.  They say
> smaller men tend to move about quickly and more quietly during infantry
> combat. Many Mexican males are small men.  Properly trained and well
> led, the Mexicans are outstanding infantryment, as good as any.  And,
> of course, we have the Vietnamese example.

Napoleon was a very short man and he liked to play chess. In general short 
people are very ambitious because of the shortcomings the nature gives them. 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:48:10 +0200, "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> wrote:

>Uzytkownik <RSHaas@aol.com> napisal w wiadomosci 
>news:1149228948.856969.125200@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> "I was heartbroken when I learned that Lawrence of Arabia was
>> five-foot-
>> three. It's just not natural. "  (Wilma}
>> ===============
>>   General Eddie Richenbacher was a very short man.  Most of Britian's
>> RAF fighter pilots were small men due to limitations of the cockpits.
>> The ideal size for a US paratrooper is about 5'6' or so.  They say
>> smaller men tend to move about quickly and more quietly during infantry
>> combat. Many Mexican males are small men.  Properly trained and well
>> led, the Mexicans are outstanding infantryment, as good as any.  And,
>> of course, we have the Vietnamese example.
>
>Napoleon was a very short man and he liked to play chess. In general short 
>people are very ambitious because of the shortcomings the nature gives them. 
>
How do you explain Fischer?

EZoto

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Ralf Callenberg" <ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote in message
news:e5o7pt$bg2$1@online.de...
> 01.06.2006 17:17, Ian Burton:
>> I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer
>> noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
>
> Just as a remark: 5'4'' is about 162 cm.

Thanks for the correction.  The height given by the kibitzer was 137cm, not
my native mode of measurement.  I clearly converted incorrectly.  That
Aronian is a dwarf is very difficult to believe.  Then again, even dwarfs
started off small. :>)

--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> Some Mexican boxers in the lower weight classes
> are outstanding.
> [ . . . ]

For sure! My friend, Danny "El Tigre" Valdez, was one such, who won the
California Featherweight Championhip in 1959. 38 years later (when last I
saw him), if you held your hand in front of you (we were drinking buddies
as well as co-workers), he could throw a punch at it from 6" away that
would knock you off your feet! And yet, he was a gentle, soft-spoken guy.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

EZoto napisal(a):
>
> >Napoleon was a very short man and he liked to play chess. In general short
> >people are very ambitious because of the shortcomings the nature gives them.
> >
> How do you explain Fischer?
>

Fischer had much energy when he was young as majority of us and of
course he had a motivation to play and win. However his energy drained
up at 29 when he quitted chess and of course he lost his motivation to
play when he achieved his life goal.

Short ones have more balanced life energy than tall ones and usually
play longer :-)

EZoto <ezoto@eznet4u.com> wrote:
> "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> wrote:
>> In general short people are very ambitious because of the
>> shortcomings the nature gives them.
>
> How do you explain Fischer?

NB: X implies Y does not imply that not X implies not Y.


Dave.

--
David Richerby                          Slimy Peanut (TM): it's like a roasted
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/     nut but it's covered in goo!

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Alan OBrien wrote:
> > "Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04...
> > >I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer
> > > noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
> >
> > I have seen him and he is probably about 4 foot 10".
> > He is a hell of a short guy.
>
> 4'10", seriously?

How 'seriously' would Taylor Kingston know Alan O'Brien? :-)

> I've sometimes thought about who was the greatest chess player
> for his size. They used to call "Sugar" Ray Robinson "the greatest
> boxer pound for pound," but who was the greatest chess player
> inch for inch?

(Yes, I noticed that Taylor Kingston wrote 'his size'.)
Without making any distinction on account of sex, however,
I would submit that Judit Polgar probably has the highest
FIDE rating / physical size ratio in history.

> Some obvious candidates would include Morphy,
> Steinitz, Reshevsky, Fine and Karpov.

Given that the average height of men in the United States
has been increasing with each generation, I doubt that
it's quite fair, say, to compare Morphy's height to
Fischer's height without taking into account the different
average heights of American men for each generation.

--Nick

Nick wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Alan OBrien wrote:
> > > "Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04...
> > > >I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer
> > > > noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
> > >
> > > I have seen him and he is probably about 4 foot 10".
> > > He is a hell of a short guy.
> >
> > 4'10", seriously?
>
> How 'seriously' would Taylor Kingston know Alan O'Brien? :-)

  Since my question was about Aronian, the relevance of this comment
eludes me.

> > I've sometimes thought about who was the greatest chess player
> > for his size. They used to call "Sugar" Ray Robinson "the greatest
> > boxer pound for pound," but who was the greatest chess player
> > inch for inch?
>
> (Yes, I noticed that Taylor Kingston wrote 'his size'.)
> Without making any distinction on account of sex, however,
> I would submit that Judit Polgar probably has the highest
> FIDE rating / physical size ratio in history.
>
> > Some obvious candidates would include Morphy,
> > Steinitz, Reshevsky, Fine and Karpov.
>
> Given that the average height of men in the United States
> has been increasing with each generation, I doubt that
> it's quite fair, say, to compare Morphy's height to
> Fischer's height without taking into account the different
> average heights of American men for each generation.

  Well then, you go right ahead and take that into account, Nick, with
my full blessing. We're behind you all the way on this.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > Alan OBrien wrote:
> > > > "Ian Burton" <notvalid@notvalid.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7yDfg.25109$ZW3.11770@dukeread04...
> > > > >I was watching the Aronian game on the ICC yesterday when a kibitzer
> > > > > noted that Aronian was only 137 cm tall (about 5'4").  Is this true?
> > > >
> > > > I have seen him and he is probably about 4 foot 10".
> > > > He is a hell of a short guy.
> > >
> > > 4'10", seriously?
> >
> > How 'seriously' would Taylor Kingston know Alan O'Brien? :-)
>
> Since my question was about Aronian, the relevance
> of this comment eludes me.

It was just my joke, given that a friend of mine knows
Alan O'Brien personally and his sense of humour.

> > > I've sometimes thought about who was the greatest chess player
> > > for his size. They used to call "Sugar" Ray Robinson "the greatest
> > > boxer pound for pound," but who was the greatest chess player
> > > inch for inch?
> >
> > (Yes, I noticed that Taylor Kingston wrote 'his size'.)
> > Without making any distinction on account of sex, however,
> > I would submit that Judit Polgar probably has the highest
> > FIDE rating / physical size ratio in history.
> >
> > > Some obvious candidates would include Morphy,
> > > Steinitz, Reshevsky, Fine and Karpov.
> >
> > Given that the average height of men in the United States
> > has been increasing with each generation, I doubt that
> > it's quite fair, say, to compare Morphy's height to
> > Fischer's height without taking into account the different
> > average heights of American men for each generation.
>
> Well then, you go right ahead and take that into account, Nick,
> with my full blessing.  We're behind you all the way on this.

In the interest of clarity, I have no serious dispute with
Taylor Kingston about any subject in this thread.
I was attempting to present an alternative way of
considered 'tallness'.

Being considered 'tall' can be construed both absolutely
(in terms of a measured height) and comparatively
(in terms of one's ranking in one's population).

Let's suppose that A and B are American men who were
born a few generations apart.   Let's suppose that A was
5' 10" tall when the average height of an American man
was 5' 5".  Let's suppose that B was 6' tall when the
average height of an American man was 5' 9".

In the usual sense, B would be considered taller than A
(comparing 6' to 5' 10").   But in an alternative sense,
A *could* be considered taller than B if, say, A's height
was in the top 10 percent of his population, while B's
height was only in the top 20 percent of his population.

I am *not* saying that these two interpretations have
equal value in general application.   The first interpretation
would be the most common way to perceive 'tallness'.   Yet
the second interpretation could be an interesting alternative
perception of 'tallness'.

Some people have conjectured that Napoleon felt impelled
to conquer in order to compensate for feelings of inferiority
on account of being very short.  But was Napoleon really
very short when compared to Frenchmen of his generation?
As far as I know, Napoleon actually was above average
in height for a Frenchman of his generation.

--Nick

Right. The contrapositive of "If x then y" is "If not y then not x."
Wilma


David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in news:qVh*
8Bfir@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:

> EZoto <ezoto@eznet4u.com> wrote:
>> "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> wrote:
>>> In general short people are very ambitious because of the
>>> shortcomings the nature gives them.
>>
>> How do you explain Fischer?
>
> NB: X implies Y does not imply that not X implies not Y.
>
>
> Dave.
>