This conveniently lets you "slip the hook", and try and get
out of supporting your position regarding Alekhine.

Which position is that?

The position you chose of quoting, and supporting,
Mr. Coles' peculiar comment about Alekhine being
in a desert. [hmm...Alzheimer's?]


I have several on Alekhine, depending on what
aspect is under discussion.

The Mojave desert thing. Dying of thirst. Attacked
by scorpions. Buried beneath cacti. UNTIL the
hypermodern openings rescued him from a certain
creativity-death!


Here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/yel2ek

Is this you, or not?

No, I'm an imposter!

So you are on record as saying Greg Kennedy is not NoMoreChess nor
HelpBot?


Do you have a quote of *me* saying this? Is this
forum plagued by other imposters, besides myself?
Blithering idiots, I can believe. Liars and pretenders,
certainly. But swarms of imposters, of this one man?
Puleeeeze! :D

-- help bot

helpbot (17 Nov 2006 23:57:38 -0800):
7 ... No doubt, Mr. Kingston is unwilling to try and support his
7 quote of Mr. Coles suggesting that Alekhine was braindead,
7 except in hypermodern openings. That he was practically
7 comatose, until magically revived by Dr.s Nimzowitch and
7 Reti. That his creativity grave had already been dug... but
7 he was resuscitated at the last moment, with help from
7 Dr. Frankenstien, et al. :D
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (18 Nov 2006 08:29:17 -0800):
7 Since I know of no quote by Coles (or anyone!) to that effect,
7 my unwillingness to defend such a position is, I think,
7 understandable. That you disagree with the Coles quotes I
7 did give neither surprises nor concerns me, and I have no
7 interest in pursuing the matter. We can agree to differ, OK? ...
_
helpbot wrote (18 Nov 2006 19:23:53 -0800):
7 ... try and get out of supporting your position regarding
7 Alekhine. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (19 Nov 2006 08:16:06 -0800):
7 ... Which position is that? I have several on Alekhine, depending
7 on what aspect is under discussion. ...

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 21:21:04 -0800):

7 The position you chose of quoting, and supporting, Mr. Coles'
7 peculiar comment about Alekhine being in a desert. ...
7
7 The Mojave desert thing. Dying of thirst. Attacked by
7 scorpions. Buried beneath cacti. UNTIL the hypermodern
7 openings rescued him from a certain creativity-death! ...

_
I believe this is the quote that helpbot has in mind:
_
"To a player like Alekhin, whose imagination
found itself parched amid the arid deserts of
the Classical style, the Hypermodern revolution
appeared like an oasis of fresh water, even
though it was to become as far as he was
concerned largely a mirage ... For a time
Alekhin threw himself wholeheartedly into the
Hypermodern movement ... But it was in his
more orthodox methods of building a dynamic
position that Alekhin signposted the way for
others to follow ... Where Alekhin parted
company with the Hypermoderns was that
while he appreciated and understood their
new views on the centre, he did not necessarily
place the same emphasis on the advantages
of withholding central pawn advances; there
were in his view many occasions where the
old classical method of advancing a central
pawn early could do more to increase dynamic
opportunities." - R.N. Coles quote reported by
Taylor Kingston (11 Nov 2006 07:28:12 -0800)
_
However, I do not see any place where Taylor Kingston
indicated that he agreed with all of the above. Indeed,
it appears to me that he mentioned the quote in order
to explain why he was "hesitant about" naming
Alekhine as a hypermodern. Indeed, in a subsequent
note, Taylor Kingston acknowledged that
_
"... Coles may be wrong. He was not infallible,
for example he claimed that Alekhine played
Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6) only once, when
actually he played it several dozen times. So
he may also be wrong about Euwe's and/or
Alekhine's hypermodernism or lack thereof --
but it would seem to require some statistical
analysis to refute him with any degree of certainty.
_
Even so, one would have first have to establish
just what would prove a player was or was not a
hypermodern." - Taylor Kingston (12 Nov 2006
08:13:15 -0800)

helpbot (17 Nov 2006 23:57:38 -0800):
7 ... No doubt, Mr. Kingston is unwilling to try and support his
7 quote of Mr. Coles suggesting that Alekhine was braindead,
7 except in hypermodern openings. That he was practically
7 comatose, until magically revived by Dr.s Nimzowitch and
7 Reti. That his creativity grave had already been dug... but
7 he was resuscitated at the last moment, with help from
7 Dr. Frankenstien, et al. :D
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (18 Nov 2006 08:29:17 -0800):
7 Since I know of no quote by Coles (or anyone!) to that effect,
7 my unwillingness to defend such a position is, I think,
7 understandable. That you disagree with the Coles quotes I
7 did give neither surprises nor concerns me, and I have no
7 interest in pursuing the matter. We can agree to differ, OK? ...
_
helpbot wrote (18 Nov 2006 19:23:53 -0800):
7 ... try and get out of supporting your position regarding
7 Alekhine. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (19 Nov 2006 08:16:06 -0800):
7 ... Which position is that? I have several on Alekhine, depending
7 on what aspect is under discussion. ...

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 21:21:04 -0800):

7 The position you chose of quoting, and supporting, Mr. Coles'
7 peculiar comment about Alekhine being in a desert. ...
7
7 The Mojave desert thing. Dying of thirst. Attacked by
7 scorpions. Buried beneath cacti. UNTIL the hypermodern
7 openings rescued him from a certain creativity-death! ...

_
I believe this is the quote that helpbot has in mind:
_
"To a player like Alekhin, whose imagination
found itself parched amid the arid deserts of
the Classical style, the Hypermodern revolution
appeared like an oasis of fresh water, even
though it was to become as far as he was
concerned largely a mirage ... For a time
Alekhin threw himself wholeheartedly into the
Hypermodern movement ... But it was in his
more orthodox methods of building a dynamic
position that Alekhin signposted the way for
others to follow ... Where Alekhin parted
company with the Hypermoderns was that
while he appreciated and understood their
new views on the centre, he did not necessarily
place the same emphasis on the advantages
of withholding central pawn advances; there
were in his view many occasions where the
old classical method of advancing a central
pawn early could do more to increase dynamic
opportunities." - R.N. Coles quote reported by
Taylor Kingston (11 Nov 2006 07:28:12 -0800)
_
However, I do not see any place where Taylor Kingston
indicated that he agreed with all of the above. Indeed,
it appears to me that he mentioned the quote in order
to explain why he was "hesitant about" naming
Alekhine as a hypermodern. Indeed, in a subsequent
note, Taylor Kingston acknowledged that
_
"... Coles may be wrong. He was not infallible,
for example he claimed that Alekhine played
Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6) only once, when
actually he played it several dozen times. So
he may also be wrong about Euwe's and/or
Alekhine's hypermodernism or lack thereof --
but it would seem to require some statistical
analysis to refute him with any degree of certainty.
_
Even so, one would have first have to establish
just what would prove a player was or was not a
hypermodern. ..." - Taylor Kingston (12 Nov 2006
08:13:15 -0800)

Louis Blair wrote:

helpbot (17 Nov 2006 23:57:38 -0800):
7 ... No doubt, Mr. Kingston is unwilling to try and support his
7 quote of Mr. Coles suggesting that Alekhine was braindead,
7 except in hypermodern openings. That he was practically
7 comatose, until magically revived by Dr.s Nimzowitch and
7 Reti. That his creativity grave had already been dug... but
7 he was resuscitated at the last moment, with help from
7 Dr. Frankenstien, et al. :D
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (18 Nov 2006 08:29:17 -0800):
7 Since I know of no quote by Coles (or anyone!) to that effect,
7 my unwillingness to defend such a position is, I think,
7 understandable. That you disagree with the Coles quotes I
7 did give neither surprises nor concerns me, and I have no
7 interest in pursuing the matter. We can agree to differ, OK? ...
_
helpbot wrote (18 Nov 2006 19:23:53 -0800):
7 ... try and get out of supporting your position regarding
7 Alekhine. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (19 Nov 2006 08:16:06 -0800):
7 ... Which position is that? I have several on Alekhine, depending
7 on what aspect is under discussion. ...

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 21:21:04 -0800):

7 The position you chose of quoting, and supporting, Mr. Coles'
7 peculiar comment about Alekhine being in a desert. ...
7
7 The Mojave desert thing. Dying of thirst. Attacked by
7 scorpions. Buried beneath cacti. UNTIL the hypermodern
7 openings rescued him from a certain creativity-death! ...

_
I believe this is the quote that helpbot has in mind:
_
"To a player like Alekhin, whose imagination
found itself parched amid the arid deserts of
the Classical style, the Hypermodern revolution
appeared like an oasis of fresh water, even
though it was to become as far as he was
concerned largely a mirage ... For a time
Alekhin threw himself wholeheartedly into the
Hypermodern movement ... But it was in his
more orthodox methods of building a dynamic
position that Alekhin signposted the way for
others to follow ... Where Alekhin parted
company with the Hypermoderns was that
while he appreciated and understood their
new views on the centre, he did not necessarily
place the same emphasis on the advantages
of withholding central pawn advances; there
were in his view many occasions where the
old classical method of advancing a central
pawn early could do more to increase dynamic
opportunities." - R.N. Coles quote reported by
Taylor Kingston (11 Nov 2006 07:28:12 -0800)
_
However, I do not see any place where Taylor Kingston
indicated that he agreed with all of the above. Indeed,
it appears to me that he mentioned the quote in order
to explain why he was "hesitant about" naming
Alekhine as a hypermodern. Indeed, in a subsequent
note, Taylor Kingston acknowledged that
_
"... Coles may be wrong. He was not infallible,
for example he claimed that Alekhine played
Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6) only once, when
actually he played it several dozen times. So
he may also be wrong about Euwe's and/or
Alekhine's hypermodernism or lack thereof --
but it would seem to require some statistical
analysis to refute him with any degree of certainty.

All this is true, yet Dr. Blair seems to have "forgotten"
that at first (that is, until *I* challenged this comment),
Taylor Kingston did support this statement and in fact
even went so far as to attack me for daring to insult Mr.
Coles, blaring on about historians and whatnot.

Not only did TK "support" Mr. Coles by way of attacking
the mesenger (moi), he is the one who selected this
quote in place of giving his personal opinion on the matter.

I have repeatedly suggested that this particular comment
regarding Alekhine missed the mark, yet even now TK
seems quite unwilling to back it up with his own opinion
on the matter, falling back to the muck trenches of ad
hominem lashings of the messenger, the critic. In my
view, the only reason TK mentioned the "fallibility" of
Mr. Coles, was precisely the same reason he *always*
tosses in a shot at a given author when writing one of
his book reviews; as I have mentioned before, this
tendency on TK's part reveals much about his psycho-
logical quirks, but little else. It goes without saying that
all authors are prone to human error -- except of course
those who are not human.

Now, Mr. Blair may wish to pretend that TK has never
supported the comment by Mr. Coles, and TK can do
the same. But this will not change the fact that TK has
mimicked the precise pattern of the Evans ratpackers,
when they are "supporting" their own kind; it's not a
substantive kind of support, but it's the thought that
counts. (Not that any real thought went into Mr. Coles'
comment. Even "Rob", if I recall correctly, attempted
to portray that comment as a position taken just to
take a position, and indeed, this seems more rational
than pretending to not have posted the position, when
TK did.)

As I mentioned earlier, if I were so inclined I might
post a selection of quotations which clearly contradict
the idea of Alekhine being starved for ideas in any but
hypermodern positions, but in my opinion this is quite
unnecessary for any but the dullest students of the
game. I might do it for, say, Sanny. But the rest of
you need merely wake up your minds (or type two
words into a Google search box). :D

-- help bot

I wrote (19 Nov 2006 22:55:59 -0800):
7 I believe this is the quote that helpbot has in mind:
7 ...
7 However, I do not see any place where Taylor Kingston
7 indicated that he agreed with all of the above. Indeed,
7 it appears to me that he mentioned the quote in order
7 to explain why he was "hesitant about" naming
7 Alekhine as a hypermodern. ...

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 All this is true, yet Dr. Blair seems to have "forgotten" that
7 at first (that is, until *I* challenged this comment), Taylor
7 Kingston did support this statement

_
Taylor Kingston presented the desert quote on 11 Nov 2006
07:28:12 -0800. All he said about it was:
_
"If I was hesitant about any of those I named as
hypermoderns, it was actually Alekhine. Coles
again, pages 73-81: ..." - Taylor Kingston
(11 Nov 2006 07:28:12 -0800)
_
I see no way in which that can be taken as indicating that
he agreed with everything in the desert quote.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 and in fact even went so far as to attack me for daring to
7 insult Mr. Coles, blaring on about historians and whatnot.
7
7 Not only did TK "support" Mr. Coles by way of attacking
7 the mesenger (moi),

_
Helpbot began expressing disapproval of the desert quote
on 11 Nov 2006 18:24:46 -0800. I see no attack on helpbot
in Taylor Kingston's 12 Nov 2006 08:13:15 -0800 response.
Moreover, he acknowledged that "Coles may be wrong"
and declared that he was "quite open to contrary data."
TK DID disagree with the idea that Coles had been
"bloviating", but that certainly was not intended to indicate
agreement with everything Coles wrote. "[Coles] was not
infallible," TK observed.
_
I believe there was criticism going back and forth between
helpbot and Taylor Kingston in later notes, but criticism of
helpbot does not imply agreement with everything Coles
wrote.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 [TK] is the one who selected this quote in place of giving
7 his personal opinion on the matter.

_
It seems to me that Taylor Kingston indicated his
own uncertainty on the classification of Alekhine,
mentioning his hesitation.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 I have repeatedly suggested that this particular comment
7 regarding Alekhine missed the mark, yet even now TK
7 seems quite unwilling to back it up with his own opinion
7 on the matter,

_
Is there any reason that Taylor Kingston be obliged to back
up everything in the Coles desert quote? ("He was not
infallible" - Taylor Kingston) Taylor Kingston presented
the desert quote as a reason for hesitation, not an
absolute verdict.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 falling back to the muck trenches of ad hominem
7 lashings of the messenger, the critic.

_
It seems to me that there has been mud going in both
directions after the early part of this discussion of the
desert quote. Again, whatever the rights and wrongs
of the mud-throwing, it does not imply agreement with
everything Coles wrote in the desert quote.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 In my view, the only reason TK mentioned the
7 "fallibility" of Mr. Coles, was precisely the same
7 reason he *always* tosses in a shot at a given author
7 when writing one of his book reviews; as I have
7 mentioned before, this tendency on TK's part reveals
7 much about his psycho-logical quirks, but little else.
7 It goes without saying that all authors are prone to
7 human error -- except of course those who are not
7 human.

_
It may go without saying that all authors are prone to
human error, but it nevertheless strikes me as
reasonable for a reviewer to endeavor to describe the
sort of errors that he found.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 Now, Mr. Blair may wish to pretend that TK has never
7 supported the comment by Mr. Coles, and TK can do
7 the same.

_
Again, my position is that Taylor Kingston has not expressed
agreement with everything in the desert quote.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 But this will not change the fact that TK has mimicked the
7 precise pattern of the Evans ratpackers, when they are
7 "supporting" their own kind; it's not a substantive kind of
7 support,

_
Is there any reason that Taylor Kingston should be obliged
to support everything in the Coles desert quote? ("He was
not infallible" - Taylor Kingston)

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 but it's the thought that counts. (Not that any real thought
7 went into Mr. Coles' comment. Even "Rob", if I recall
7 correctly, attempted to portray that comment as a
7 position taken just to take a position, and indeed, this
7 seems more rational than pretending to not have posted
7 the position, when TK did.)

_
I have not pretended that TK did not post the desert
quote. He presented the desert quote as a reason for
hesitation about the classification of Alekhine.

_
helpbot wrote (19 Nov 2006 23:45:53 -0800):

7 As I mentioned earlier, if I were so inclined I might
7 post a selection of quotations which clearly contradict
7 the idea of Alekhine being starved for ideas in any but
7 hypermodern positions, but in my opinion this is quite
7 unnecessary for any but the dullest students of the
7 game. I might do it for, say, Sanny. But the rest of
7 you need merely wake up your minds (or type two
7 words into a Google search box). :D

_
Quite apart from the issue of TK not endorsing the
entire desert quote, there is also the matter of whether
or not helpbot is describing the quote fairly. Look
again at the last half of the quote:
_
"... Where Alekhin parted company with the
Hypermoderns was that while he appreciated
and understood their new views on the centre,
he did not necessarily place the same
emphasis on the advantages of withholding
central pawn advances; there were in his view
many occasions where the old classical
method of advancing a central pawn early
could do more to increase dynamic
opportunities." - Coles quote reported by
Taylor Kingston (11 Nov 2006 07:28:12 -0800)
_
Does that sound like someone maintaining that "Alekhine"
was "starved for ideas in any but hypermodern positions"?
_
_
Taylor Kingston's note that presented the desert quote:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Alekhine's Creativity (was: Elo on Fischer's conditions
vs. Karpov)
Date: 11 Nov 2006 07:28:12 -0800

On Nov 11, 12:52 am, "help bot" wrote:
One more thing I would like to know: why is Euwe
listed as among the best "hypermodern" players? I
have not studied many of his games, but the few I've
seen were nothing unusual, just rock-solid chess. I
think I would sooner list Alekhine among them before
Euwe.

In support of my inclusion of Euwe, I offer this quote from R.N.
Coles' "Dynamic Chess" (1956), page 38:

"It came almost as a shock to the Hypermodern masters to find that
the novel opening systems which they had evolved over the years and
finally with much labor brought to the hard test of competitive play
were immediately adopted by a still younger generation who played them
as to the manner born."

The above introduces the game Euwe-Loman, Rotterdam 1924, which
opened in definite hypermodern fashion, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 g6 4.Bb2
Bg7 5.Na3 e5 6.Nc2 (eventually 1-0, 17).

If I was hesitant about any of those I named as hypermoderns, it was
actually Alekhine. Coles again, pages 73-81:

"To a player like Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched
amid the arid deserts of the Classical style, the Hypermodern
revolution appeared like an oasis of fresh water, even though it was to
become as far as he was concerned largely a mirage ... For a time
Alekhin threw himself wholeheartedly into the Hypermodern movement ...
But it was in his more orthodox methods of building a dynamic position
that Alekhin signposted the way for others to follow ... Where Alekhin
parted company with the Hypermoderns was that while he appreciated and
understood their new views on the centre, he did not necessarily place
the same emphasis on the advantages of withholding central pawn
advances; there were in his view many occasions where the old classical
method of advancing a central pawn early could do more to increase
dynamic opportunities."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
Taylor Kingston's reaction to helpbot's
11 Nov 2006 18:24:46 -0800 disapproval:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Alekhine's Creativity (was: Elo on Fischer's conditions
vs. Karpov)
Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:13:15 -0800

On Nov 11, 9:24 pm, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:52 am, "help bot" wrote:
One more thing I would like to know: why is Euwe
listed as among the best "hypermodern" players? I
have not studied many of his games, but the few I've
seen were nothing unusual, just rock-solid chess. I
think I would sooner list Alekhine among them before
Euwe.

In support of my inclusion of Euwe, I offer this quote from R.N.
Coles' "Dynamic Chess" (1956), page 38:

"It came almost as a shock to the Hypermodern masters to find that
the novel opening systems which they had evolved over the years and
finally with much labor brought to the hard test of competitive play
were immediately adopted by a still younger generation who played them
as to the manner born."

The above introduces the game Euwe-Loman, Rotterdam 1924, which
opened in definite hypermodern fashion, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 g6 4.Bb2
Bg7 5.Na3 e5 6.Nc2 (eventually 1-0, 17).

One game, a hypermodern makes?

In that connection, I am not presenting the game so much as the Coles
quote.

Then *I* am far
beyond Euwe, for I have played such wing openings a
thousand fold. (This time instead of mere "shock", they
are in for an *electrocution*!)
What about *the majority* of Euwe's games -- are they
classical, or hypermodern style?

Perhaps you would like to undertake a statistical analysis of Euwe's
opening repertoire, and report the results here. I am quite open to
contrary data.

If I was hesitant about any of those I named as hypermoderns, it was
actually Alekhine. Coles again, pages 73-81:

"To a player like Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched
amid the arid deserts of the Classical style, the Hypermodern
revolution appeared like an oasis of fresh water, even though it was to
become as far as he was concerned largely a mirage ... For a time
Alekhin threw himself wholeheartedly into the Hypermodern movement ...
But it was in his more orthodox methods of building a dynamic position
that Alekhin signposted the way for others to follow ... Where Alekhin
parted company with the Hypermoderns was that while he appreciated and
understood their new views on the centre, he did not necessarily place
the same emphasis on the advantages of withholding central pawn
advances; there were in his view many occasions where the old classical
method of advancing a central pawn early could do more to increase
dynamic opportunities."

GM Alekhine mastered and combined both the classical
and hypermodern ideas -- no need for bloviating.

I do not consider Coles to be bloviating in the above passage, nor in
anything I've ever read from him.

In particular,
his frequent adoption of the Queen's Indian Defense as Black
shows the hole in any attempt to exclude him, unless you
disqualify all those who were not fanatical about it.

Again, Coles may be wrong. He was not infallible, for example he
claimed that Alekhine played Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6) only once,
when actually he played it several dozen times. So he may also be wrong
about Euwe's and/or Alekhine's hypermodernism or lack thereof -- but it
would seem to require some statistical analysis to refute him with any
degree of certainty.
Even so, one would have first have to establish just what would prove
a player was or was not a hypermodern. Doing a quick check on CB's
MegaBase 2005 of the games of Richard Réti, considered one of the
foremost Hypermoderns, I found him as White playing the Queen's Gambit
31 times and the Ruy López 37 times, but his own Réti System only 22
times. So does that make him a Classicist?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

On Nov 20, 12:21 am, "help bot" wrote:
This conveniently lets you "slip the hook", and try and get
out of supporting your position regarding Alekhine.

Which position is that? The position you chose of quoting, and supporting,
Mr. Coles' peculiar comment about Alekhine being
in a desert. [hmm...Alzheimer's?]

I have several on Alekhine, depending on what
aspect is under discussion.

The Mojave desert thing. Dying of thirst. Attacked
by scorpions. Buried beneath cacti. UNTIL the
hypermodern openings rescued him from a certain
creativity-death!

That is not an accurate summary of the Coles quote. The desert
analogy applied not just to openings but to the Classical style as a
whole: "Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched amid the arid
deserts of the Classical *_style_* ..." (emphasis added).
Coles' book "Dynamic Chess" deals not just with hypermodern openings,
but with the overall stylistic evolution of chess. He considers the
strict Classical style, epitomized by the dogmatic Tarrasch, to have
been somewhat limited, and oriented more toward not losing than toward
winning.
In particular, its tenet that no move creating a positional weakness
in one's own forces should be played, was burdensome to someone like
Alekhine, who realized that a weakness was not important unless and
until it was attacked. If incurring a static weakness in the meantime
allowed a compensating dynamic initiative, then that was OK by AA.
You are obviously not familiar with the book, or you would not have
misinterpreted the quote to such an extent. I recommend that you read
it before trying to discuss it further.

So you are on record as saying Greg Kennedy is not NoMoreChess nor
HelpBot?

Do you have a quote of *me* saying this? Is this
forum plagued by other imposters, besides myself?
Blithering idiots, I can believe. Liars and pretenders,
certainly. But swarms of imposters, of this one man?
Puleeeeze! :D

Fine, Greg, whatever.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

That is not an accurate summary of the Coles quote. The desert
analogy applied not just to openings but to the Classical style as a
whole: "Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched amid the arid
deserts of the Classical *_style_* ..." (emphasis added).
Coles' book "Dynamic Chess" deals not just with hypermodern openings,
but with the overall stylistic evolution of chess. He considers the
strict Classical style, epitomized by the dogmatic Tarrasch, to have
been somewhat limited, and oriented more toward not losing than toward
winning.
In particular, its tenet that no move creating a positional weakness
in one's own forces should be played, was burdensome to someone like
Alekhine, who realized that a weakness was not important unless and
until it was attacked. If incurring a static weakness in the meantime
allowed a compensating dynamic initiative, then that was OK by AA.
You are obviously not familiar with the book, or you would not have
misinterpreted the quote to such an extent. I recommend that you read
it before trying to discuss it further.


I think therefore I am. ( sorry, couldn't resist)... I think that it is
unfair to simply say that Capablanca had more natural talent or
creativity than Alekhine. I believe that no amount of work or study
over a position would render the types of results Alekhine was able to
produce if he did not have a very creative spark.

Was he not a master at discerning ways to exploit the smallest weakness
in an opponents position and do it manytimes in ways that had not yet
been discerned? Could he not be construed as the chessic equilivant of
a boxer who is a "counter puncher"?

Rob

On Nov 21, 2:53 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

That is not an accurate summary of the Coles quote. The desert
analogy applied not just to openings but to the Classical style as a
whole: "Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched amid the arid
deserts of the Classical *_style_* ..." (emphasis added).
Coles' book "Dynamic Chess" deals not just with hypermodern openings,
but with the overall stylistic evolution of chess. He considers the
strict Classical style, epitomized by the dogmatic Tarrasch, to have
been somewhat limited, and oriented more toward not losing than toward
winning.
In particular, its tenet that no move creating a positional weakness
in one's own forces should be played, was burdensome to someone like
Alekhine, who realized that a weakness was not important unless and
until it was attacked. If incurring a static weakness in the meantime
allowed a compensating dynamic initiative, then that was OK by AA.
You are obviously not familiar with the book, or you would not have
misinterpreted the quote to such an extent. I recommend that you read
it before trying to discuss it further.

I think therefore I am. ( sorry, couldn't resist)... I think that it is
unfair to simply say that Capablanca had more natural talent or
creativity than Alekhine.

The above quote does not make that assertion.

I believe that no amount of work or study
over a position would render the types of results Alekhine was able to
produce if he did not have a very creative spark.

The above quote does not deal with that issue.

Was he not a master at discerning ways to exploit the smallest weakness
in an opponents position and do it manytimes in ways that had not yet
been discerned? Could he not be construed as the chessic equilivant of
a boxer who is a "counter puncher"?

The above quote does not deal with those questions.

On Nov 21, 2:53 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

That is not an accurate summary of the Coles quote. The desert
analogy applied not just to openings but to the Classical style as a
whole: "Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched amid the arid
deserts of the Classical *_style_* ..." (emphasis added).
Coles' book "Dynamic Chess" deals not just with hypermodern openings,
but with the overall stylistic evolution of chess. He considers the
strict Classical style, epitomized by the dogmatic Tarrasch, to have
been somewhat limited, and oriented more toward not losing than toward
winning.
In particular, its tenet that no move creating a positional weakness
in one's own forces should be played, was burdensome to someone like
Alekhine, who realized that a weakness was not important unless and
until it was attacked. If incurring a static weakness in the meantime
allowed a compensating dynamic initiative, then that was OK by AA.
You are obviously not familiar with the book, or you would not have
misinterpreted the quote to such an extent. I recommend that you read
it before trying to discuss it further.

I think therefore I am. ( sorry, couldn't resist)...

Neither could Descartes.

I think that it is
unfair to simply say that Capablanca had more natural talent or
creativity than Alekhine.

Then we will have to agree to differ. It's not an important issue,
and the bulk of the issue is, I suspect, semantic. It seems everyone
merely defines "natural" and "talent" in such a way that it supports
his own thesis.

I believe that no amount of work or study
over a position would render the types of results Alekhine was able to
produce if he did not have a very creative spark.

I am content to let you retain that belief.

Was he not a master at discerning ways to exploit the smallest weakness
in an opponents position and do it many times in ways that had not yet
been discerned?

Definitely, his pre-match analysis of Capablanca's games being a
prime example.

Could he not be construed as the chessic equilivant of
a boxer who is a "counter puncher"?

No. Traditionally the term "counter-puncher," as applied to a chess
player, means someone who lets his opponent take the initiative, even
invites attack and excels at defense, waiting for the opponent to
overextend himself, then pouncing when the time is right. Prime
examples would be Tigran Petrosian or Emil Kupchik; others might be
Louis Paulsen, the later Steinitz, Salo Flohr, or Ulf Andersson, and at
times Em. Lasker and Capablanca. That was not Alekhine's style. He
usually strove to seize the initiative and go on the attack as soon as
possible, and did not like to defend.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Could he not be construed as the chessic equilivant of
a boxer who is a "counter puncher"?

No. Traditionally the term "counter-puncher," as applied to a chess
player, means someone who lets his opponent take the initiative, even
invites attack and excels at defense, waiting for the opponent to
overextend himself, then pouncing when the time is right. Prime
examples would be Tigran Petrosian or Emil Kupchik; others might be
Louis Paulsen, the later Steinitz, Salo Flohr, or Ulf Andersson, and at
times Em. Lasker and Capablanca. That was not Alekhine's style. He
usually strove to seize the initiative and go on the attack as soon as
possible, and did not like to defend.

In addition to, perhaps, not liking to defend, it should
be noted that, in his prime, Alekhine had little *need*
to defend. No doubt some exceptions could be found,
but for example in his book "My Best Games of Chess",
Alekhine rarely was on the defensive.

IMO, Em. Lasker is a perfect example (when he had
the Black pieces anyway) of a counter-puncher.

-----------

Having shifted to a new position, Mr. Kingston has yet
to provide *any* substantive support for the idea that
Alekhine was starved for ideas in classical "style"
positions, instead, suggesting I read some book. In
reply, may I suggest TK read Alekhine's book, instead
of relying upon Mr. Coles to *do his thinking for him*.
Just an idea. It's a thick book, and in truth, the most
boring games therein may well be the Queen's Indians,
which just happen to be hypermodern in style! :D

-- help bot