"SBD" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 30, 6:32 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Well, not without effort, but understanding this level of chess is a bit
different than reading Chess Life - you do have to work at it, and its
not
the English, but the chessic understanding which requires work. It also
assumes that the reader /can/ understand precisely 'what one thinks'
without
taking too much trouble - a dubious proposition.

I'll resent the use of "CL" but agree with the point in general as
regards any general interest chess magazine - Adorjan must be chewed
thoroughly to be digested. It could be made an easier read, but just
imagine trying to work with this very stubborn GM on edits!!!!

He is actually not difficult to work with - and previously for his mamoth
interview at Chessville, we were able to negotiate very much, although some
warm terms were exchanged on occassion.

The trouble is for any non-native English speaker a tendency to know more
words than they can write - and typically, their articles approximate
speech, with sundry ad hoc and peculiar terms included, very often from
pop-music sources [you noted the same from Alberts].

If you edit this too much then it removes the flavor entirely. In this
instance I could understand his commentary readily enough to let it ride,
merely correcting some typos. When he wrote to Garry in earlier times, I
think Adorjan wrote in German and Garry replied in English [ROFL].

Its harder if you have to work through a translator, since then the phrases
are perfectly understandable, but completely boring and wooden prose hoisted
out of tourist phrase books. These might be good enough to get you to the
trian station, but inadequate to discuss dynamic aspects of a 'performance
art' such as chess.

I got stuck with Taimanov once, and we resolved an issue in the only common
language we had, Latin! Nolens Volens! since he precisely didn't like
'neverthless' and prefered 'notwithstanding'.

In that case I kept as many of Taimanov's verbs and nouns as I could, but
used different and rather more adjectives!

It's
too bad, because an *easier* read - not necessarily an *easy* one-
would be quite beneficial to many. He has as much to say as Watson,
but simply can't express it well - and I don't know about you, but
even with his facile use of English, I still had to read Watson 3
times before I really got the point.

[lol] the most colourful if obscure sentence coming from a Russian source
was

"the rooks broke through into black's position like rutting pigs"

which i felt obliged to re-write.

---

What I really think is that Garry will understand Adorjan perfectly, since
while he may not agree, he will understand the artistic approach to
playing - and this is the gap I feel corn-bot experiences - these guys dont
need to dot the t's and cross the i's, they will intuit each other's sense
almost completely.

And rather than this being some sort of show-piece for Adorjan's ideas, I
think the man himself wants instead to demonstrate a level of correspondance
among themselves. If its not clear from the brief leader, Kasparov was doing
the asking here, and while Adorjan is certainly very opinionated, it seems
to me that that was exactly what Kasparov was looking for. So one level of
appreciation for the exchange is if Adorjan gave it back to Kasparov in full
measure?

...

And Adorjan is not the first to say so - Khalifman wrote the self-same
thing
when he was W Ch, and this opinion seems common umong 2700 players.


But "protecting one's rating" is not always the same thing. For a
1500, it might mean staying in class. For a GM, it might mean
tournament invites etc - not prize money exactly, but still payment of
a kind.

Khalifman said that was a difference without a distinction. But I take your
point, and Adorjan is saying the almighty rating is, for him, not by any
means the only measure, certainly not in respect of the creativity of modern
players in the computer era.

To me the protection of ratings at lower levels is more ego. At higher
levels, it is "Ego+".

Actually I am more upset that the Whitaker thread went dead when I
showed that indeed, he was right 40 years ago about the fortress set-
up. I expected *some* kind of commentary from help-bot.... laugh......

As elsewhere, maybe that subject needs a more formal appraisal? and is in
hand

Cordially, Phil Innes