|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: conditions, elo, fischers, karpov |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Ads |
|
#72
November 8th 06, 07:57 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.googl e.com!h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Taylor Kingston" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov Date: 8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 50 Message-ID: .com References: . com . com . com .com .com . com . com .com .com om .com . com .com . com . com NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.180.245 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1163013318 353 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006 19:15:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:15:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: . com User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 netcache2 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.4) Complaints-To: Injection-Info: h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=198.96.180.245; posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N On Nov 8, 1:58 pm, "Rob" wrote: Perhaps Max Euwe said it best: "Alekhine's perfect technique and combinative talent are so well known that it is unnecessary to talk about them. His conduct of the endgame was shining. Even so, I admire most how he finished the adjourned games. I had to analyze them, too, so I know them well. When I think of how my opponent created ingenious ideas and how he finished them in unexpected ways, I have only the greatest admiration for Alekhine's playing style" None of which has anything to do with "very pronounced theories about lines of development especially as related in countering other opponents lines of play." Euwe is just saying that Alekhine's accuracy, tactical skill and endgame technique were excellent. This has nothing to do with new "theories," whatever you meant by that and seem unable to explain. TK or Phil Innes or Jerzy or Wlod are much better equiped to answer on the specifics. Um, Rob, in case you didn't notice, it was TK who asked you what Alekhine's "theory" was. So isn't it a bit silly to say "TK is much better equipped to answer"? TK is asking _you_ to answer. Sorry, I couldnt tell from Dr Blairs post that it wasn't he who was making the statement. His work ethic was unique in the total consumation. Others since have mimiced this but none have combined both the work ethic and creative genius as he did. I would not agree. Before and during Alekhine's time the work ethics of Rubinstein, Spielmann, R=E9ti, Gr=FCnfeld, Euwe, Botvinnik and Keres were probably at least equally strong, and after him those of Fischer, Geller, Korchnoi, Polugaevsky, Portisch, Karpov, Kasparov and others were as good or better. And certainly several of them also showed creative genius. Yes, But those players did not "create" as Alekhine did, in my estimation. They were as the Romans.. well suited to apply ideas and techniques already evidenced but not having the creative spark as the Greeks. I suggest getting better grounded in chess history before making blanket generalizations that underestimate some very great players. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
|
|
#73
November 8th 06, 08:15 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
help bot wrote:
Compare and contrast this statement to what has already appeared in this thread; it was clearly stated that a third party proposed this to FIDE, and that no one -- not even the Russians -- objected at the time. Does this indicate that any "shock" would then have been the result of an American suggesting this idea? And this appears to contradict the statement made earlier in this thread as to who did the proposing of the idea. According to Edmondson in January 1978, when FIDE was about to try to decide between the limited match and the unlimited one (that USCF still wanted), Karpov himself was the 3rd party who, behind the scenes, suggested the compromse (unlimited match in exchange for rematch clause), and Dr. Tudela of Venezuela who introduced it during the actual FIDE meeting. Now, Edmondson's article indicates his complete approval, so it might have come as a shock when an American chimed in in support of a rematch clause for Karpov, but his article doesn't address that one way or the other. He just says that nobody objected. This has already appeared in this very thread. The key idea is that two matches are not the same as one match. Yes, clearly the chances of becoming champion under the 1978 rules were much better than the chances of becoming champion under Fischer's rules in 1975. The chances of *staying* champion for 3 years under either system are a different question and probably impossible to quantify, though. The whole idea of trying to judge victory by percentage points though is dodgy. By Kalme's thinking, a 10-8 (+2) victory in Fischer's system should be exactly equal to a +5-4=15 (+1) result in the old system (because in both cases, the winner won 55.6% of the decisive games). But going by percentages seems like the wrong approach, since one system does count draws, and the other doesn't. I think most of us can see that even in Fischer's system, a +10-8=50 result is much less decisive than +10-8=0. But by Kalme's thinking, both of these results are identical, since he's not only not scoring the draws, but pretending that they don't exist at all. In fact, by Kalme's thinking, being the first to win a single game of chess is the most difficult task of all, since to do that, would require the winner to win 100% of the decisive games. That's a good sign that there's something screwy with the argument. There's really no way to mathematically say that the challenger has a better chance under Fischer's system. It's purely a matter of taste. Some players would genuinely prefer having to go 2-0 with no time limit than having to win the very next game, others wouldn't. The objective reality was that the new system required the challenger to win by 2 points instead of 1, and that no such thing had ever happened in a FIDE championship match before. Maybe never in ANY world championship (except the 1886 match, which hit both players equally). I mean to say, what if GM Fischer continually added more, each and every time FIDE accepted all the others? This process has to end somewhere; the world does not stop revolving simply because GM Fischer has a serious psychological problem. Isaac Kashdan made that same point about the 1969 Championship, which Fischer wouldn't play in unless they increased it to 22 rounds. Kash wrote: ~~~~~ "If enlarging the tournament would assure Fischer's participation I might say go ahead with it... But what if the schedule were rearranged, quite a task at short notice, and Fischer then went to New York just in time to play, and then objected to the lights, or the size of the playing area, or the hum of the spectators, or the director's manner or some other point, major or minor. As it happens, Fischer is now in California. He was asked to come to New York, at the expense of USCF, to check out the playing conditions. This alone would indicate that USCF officials are very anxious to have Fischer in the tournament. Fischer refused to discuss any other matters until his request for 22 players was accepted. I have had some personal experience with Fischer. I supervised him as Captain of the U.S.A. team at the Chess Olympics in Leipzig, East Germany, in 1960, and as Director of The Piatagorsky Cup Tournament in Santa Monica, 1966. On both occasions there were no problems that came to public attention, but there were some incidents that may have added to the gray hair I have. Not that I have given up on Fischer. I would gladly assume a similar task if I thought it would help. I am only pointing out that making a concession to Fischer does not guarantee success of a venture. I am well aware of the tremendous advantage to American chess if the world championship could be brought here. It would be worth a great deal of effort and money on the part of the chess community, and it would be worth some sacrifices on the part of other grandmasters. But the goal is also worth a great deal to Fischer, and he must also show some accommodation." ~~~~~
|
|
#74
November 8th 06, 09:59 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):
7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history 7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate 7 some very great players. _ I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine have all written books of that sort. Fine has written, _ "For sheer originality, profundity, and technical perfection [Alekhine] was never surpassed." - Fine (1951) _ I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic about Alekhine in some of his writing. _ Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective and I, at least, get the impression that some authors oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik.
|
|
#75
November 8th 06, 10:05 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):
7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history 7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate 7 some very great players. _ I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote books of that sort. Fine wrote, _ "For sheer originality, profundity, and technical perfection [Alekhine] was never surpassed." - Fine (1951) _ I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic about Alekhine in some of his writing. _ Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective and I, at least, get the impression that some authors oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik.
|
|
#76
November 8th 06, 10:26 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):
7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history 7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate 7 some very great players. _ I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote books of that sort. Fine wrote, _ "At his best Alekhine had equals, but he did not have any superiors. For sheer originality, profundity, and technical perfection he was never surpassed. He ranks among the really great artists of the chessboard." - Fine (1951) _ I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic about Alekhine in some of his writing. _ Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective and I, at least, get the impression that some authors oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik.
|
|
#77
November 8th 06, 10:30 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
On Nov 8, 4:59 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote: I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine have all written books of that sort. Yes, I've read all of them. My point was that Rob produced nothing to establish his claim that Alekhine had "very pronounced theories about lines of development"; in fact it seemed he could not even explain what he meant, and suggested that I should define it for him. I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic about Alekhine in some of his writing. Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered Alekhine the greatest player of all time. But neither he nor the other writers you mention attributed Alekhine's greatness to his "theories," whether "pronounced" or otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not show any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the hypermoderns Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such as Rubinstein. He was eclectic rather than "ideological."
|
|
#78
November 8th 06, 11:25 PM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.googl e.com!b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Taylor Kingston" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Subject: Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov Date: 8 Nov 2006 14:30:50 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: .com References: . com .com .com . com . com .com .com om .com . com .com .com .com .com .com NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.180.245 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1163025055 8039 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2006 22:30:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:30:55 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: .com User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; AT&T CSM6.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 netcache2 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.4) Complaints-To: Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=198.96.180.245; posting-account=EiI5yw0AAACV86a5CGNajLjBxzUoGk-N On Nov 8, 4:59 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote: I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine have all written books of that sort. Yes, I've read all of them. My point was that Rob produced nothing to establish his claim that Alekhine had "very pronounced theories about lines of development"; in fact it seemed he could not even explain what he meant, and suggested that I should define it for him. I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic about Alekhine in some of his writing. Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered Alekhine the greatest player of all time. But neither he nor the other writers you mention attributed Alekhine's greatness to his "theories," whether "pronounced" or otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not show any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the hypermoderns Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such as Rubinstein. He was eclectic rather than "ideological." AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#79
November 9th 06, 01:09 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
I wrote (8 Nov 2006 14:26:52 -0800):
7 I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading 7 SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell 7 has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the 7 evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote 7 books of that sort. Fine wrote, 7 7 "At his best Alekhine had equals, but he did 7 not have any superiors. For sheer originality, 7 profundity, and technical perfection he was 7 never surpassed. He ranks among the really 7 great artists of the chessboard." - Fine (1951) 7 7 I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic 7 about Alekhine in some of his writing. 7 7 Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such 7 writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective 7 and I, at least, get the impression that some authors 7 oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting 7 to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were 7 written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and 7 Kramnik. _ Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 14:30:50 -0800): 7 Yes, I've read all of [those books on the evolution of 7 chess by Réti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine]. My point was that 7 Rob produced nothing to establish his claim that Alekhine 7 had "very pronounced theories about lines of development"; 7 in fact it seemed he could not even explain what he meant, 7 and suggested that I should define it for him. 7 7 Yes, Reinfeld, writing in the early 1950s, considered 7 Alekhine the greatest player of all time. But neither he 7 nor the other writers you mention attributed Alekhine's 7 greatness to his "theories," whether "pronounced" or 7 otherwise. In fact Alekhine's play generally did not show 7 any pronounced theoretical slant, unlike, say, the 7 hypermoderns Réti and Nimzovitch, or classicists such 7 as Rubinstein. He was eclectic rather than "ideological." _ To me, all this terminology is unclear, and I wonder if a word like "theories" means the same thing to different people. I get the impression that Rob Mitchell is in approximately the same position as me - remembering things vaguely and hoping that others can flesh out (and maybe adjust) the concept. _ The Euwe quote said domething about the creation of "ingenious ideas". Did somebody write that Alekhine came up with new attacking ideas? It might be fun to take another look at what those books said and try to judge to what extent they made statements that have stood the test of time.
|
|
#80
November 9th 06, 06:14 AM
posted to rec.games.chess.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov
Taylor Kingston wrote: On Nov 8, 9:27 am, "Rob" wrote: I believe Alekhines "creative" work ethic is unique in chess. He developed not only a theory but also applied the theory to great effect. To what "theory" do you refer, Rob? And I would agree that Alekhine's chess work ethic was exemplary, but it was hardly unique. It seems as though "Rob" is unfamiliar with the work of Wilhelm Steinitz, among others. Alekhine's "theory", as it is termed, was simply that other players played bad moves, requiring frequent refutation OTB. ;D -- help bot
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov | parrthenon@cs.com | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 75 | November 13th 06 07:24 PM |
| Fischer's 1975 Conditions | Alan OBrien | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 8 | March 17th 06 05:42 PM |
| Karpov Exclusively by Dimitrije Bjelica | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 1 | February 9th 06 02:35 PM |
| Karpov Exclusively by Dimitrije Bjelica | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 1 | February 9th 06 02:35 PM |
| Karpov Exclusively by Dimitrije Bjelica | Sam Sloan | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) | 1 | February 9th 06 02:35 PM |
Linear Mode
