On Nov 22, 1:50 am, "help bot" wrote:

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.

Of course! That particular sample is biased. It's a bit like saying
"In games that they won, the Boston Red Sox were rarely outscored." For
a "best games" collection Alekhine was not about to include any games
showing him losing a defensive battle. Heck, at times he'd even change
the moves to show himself winning faster than he actually did.
But it's quite true that in his prime Alekhine was rarely on the
defensive. Few players were so insistent on, and successful at, gaining
the initiative early in the game.

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.

I realize, Greg, that it might be a novel experience for you actually
to read something thoroughly before passing judgement on it, but you
might find it refreshing. The Coles book is still widely available in
the second-hand market. I highly recommend it. Even if you don't agree
with everything Coles says, you will probably find it a very
interesting read. If, after having read it, you still want to discuss
it, let me know.

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

Which Alekhine book would you suggest? Decades ago I bought and read
through both his best games collections (1908-23 and 1924-37). Those
same old copies still sit on my shelf now.
Some years ago I acquired and reviewed "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games, 1902-1946" (McFarland, 1998), which has every game he ever
played that survives -- over 2,500 of them. Looking at its openings
index, the most frequently played openings a

1. QGD Orthodox -- about 335 games
2. Ruy Lopez -- 330
3. French Defense -- 240
4. Other symmetrical QP -- 175
5. Sicilian -- 165
6. QGD Slav/Semi-Slav -- 125
7. Nimzo-Indian -- 100
8-9. Caro-Kann -- 90
8-9. Vienna Game -- 90
10. Queen's Indian -- 70

helpbot wrote (21 Nov 2006 22:50:30 -0800):

7 Having shifted to a new position,

_
Where is there any record of the supposed old position?

_
helpbot wrote (21 Nov 2006 22:50:30 -0800):

7 Mr. Kingston has yet to provide *any* substantive support
7 for the idea that Alekhine was starved for ideas in classical
7 "style" positions, ...

_
Why should he? Is there any reason that Taylor Kingston
should be obliged to support everything in the Coles desert
quote?
_
"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)
_
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. Moreover, 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. ..."
- Taylor Kingston (12 Nov 2006 08:13:15 -0800)

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:50 am, "help bot" wrote:

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.

Of course! That particular sample is biased.

Are you trying to suggest that the author was biased,
pro-Alekhine, or against him? Maybe he was just
jealous of Alekhine's amazing skill.


It's a bit like saying
"In games that they won, the Boston Red Sox were rarely outscored."


Only the games which they won by forfeit show them
being "outscored" by the loser. Steroids, pine-tar bats,
spitballs -- that sort of thing. Come to think of it, even
outright cheating seems to be okay in baseball, almost
never resulting in a forfeit. No wonder the game is so
popular here.


For a "best games" collection Alekhine was not about to include any games
showing him losing a defensive battle.

With so many brilliant wins, surely he could afford
to toss in a couple of losses. I don't remember, but
this would easy to check -- even for me.


Heck, at times he'd even change
the moves to show himself winning faster than he actually did.


I have read plenty of comments to that effect, as well
as references to a book by Dr. Nunn on this. But it
should be noted that GM Nunn needed Fritz in order
to find his improvements, and were Alekhine alive
today, he would not even know what Fritz is, let alone
need it for analysis help. Give the man a bottle of Jim
Beam, and he requires nothing more than a chess board
to analyse GM Nunn's games. So who is the real GM
here?


But it's quite true that in his prime Alekhine was rarely on the
defensive. Few players were so insistent on, and successful at, gaining
the initiative early in the game.


I wish I had said that; you're a very insightful guy. (Let me
guess: IM Innes told you Alekhine was a world champ?)


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.

I realize, Greg, that it might be a novel experience for you actually
to read something thoroughly before passing judgement on it, but you
might find it refreshing. The Coles book is still widely available in
the second-hand market. I highly recommend it. Even if you don't agree
with everything Coles says, you will probably find it a very
interesting read. If, after having read it, you still want to discuss
it, let me know.


Unlike Mr. Kingston, I do not require another party
to do my thinking for me. In this case, I have come to
the conclusion that the quote selected by Taylor Kingston
is nonsense, for Alekhine was never in a desert, regardless
of the type of position. If I were to *look* for players who
were lost in a desert, lacking creative ideas, the last place
on earth I might check would be Alekhine's grave. I won't
even bother to list the countless players who appear higher
on the "desert" list than Alekhine; suffice it to say that he is
near the very bottom. Geographically speaking, I place him
somewhere in the middle of the Pacific ocean -- on the
farthest side of the planet from the Sahara. (Note that I may
well be positioned somewhere in North Africa, in a tiny oasis
near the edge of the desert.)


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

Which Alekhine book would you suggest?

How I Demolished Nimzowitch (and other Hypermoderns)
by Cardoza.

Playing to Win, by Batsford

Beating the Human Chess Machine, by Chess Digest

How to Beat Bobby Fischer and Kasparov, by Future
Publishing

My Best Games of Chess, by Dover

My Best Games of Chess, vol. II (yes, he's THAT good)

Euwe Was Just Lucky, by Whiner Press

Bogolyubov, Man or Myth?, by Slaughterhouse Publishing

My Defense (1.P-K4 N-KB3!), self-published

How to Defeat Anyone* at Chess, by Batsford
(*anyone except Em. Lasker, that is)


Decades ago I bought and read
through both his best games collections (1908-23 and 1924-37). Those
same old copies still sit on my shelf now.
Some years ago I acquired and reviewed "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games, 1902-1946" (McFarland, 1998), which has every game he ever
played that survives -- over 2,500 of them. Looking at its openings
index, the most frequently played openings a

1. QGD Orthodox -- about 335 games
2. Ruy Lopez -- 330
3. French Defense -- 240
4. Other symmetrical QP -- 175
5. Sicilian -- 165
6. QGD Slav/Semi-Slav -- 125
7. Nimzo-Indian -- 100
8-9. Caro-Kann -- 90
8-9. Vienna Game -- 90
10. Queen's Indian -- 70

It would be interesting to weed out the choices made
by his opponents, leaving only the choices indicating
Alekhine's own openings preferences. For example,
1.e4 c6 leads to a Caro-Kan, yet if Alekhine had White
this in no way implies that he prefered that opening;
rather, it indicates that his opponent did.

-- help bot

On Nov 23, 2:47 am, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:50 am, "help bot" wrote:

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.

Of course! That particular sample is biased.

Are you trying to suggest that the author was biased,
pro-Alekhine, or against him?

Since Alekhine himself was the author of the books in question, I am
saying that Alekhine had a definite pro-Alekhine bias. In this, though,
he was hardly alone. I have yet to see any chess master publish
anything along the lines of "My Worst Games" or "My Most Embarassing
Mistakes."
Znosko-Borovsky once wrote a book titled something like "Capablanca's
Losses." Told of this, Capa replied that he intended to publish a book
titled "Znosko-Borovsky's Good Games," but so far he had been unable to
collect any suitable examples.

Maybe he was just
jealous of Alekhine's amazing skill.

Alekhine jealous of himself? A paradoxical idea. Though not entirely
implausible, I suppose -- after all, we've seen Innes argue with
himself.

For a "best games" collection Alekhine was not about to include any games
showing him losing a defensive battle.

With so many brilliant wins, surely he could afford
to toss in a couple of losses. I don't remember, but
this would easy to check -- even for me.

Surprise us then, and do some actual research for once.

But it's quite true that in his prime Alekhine was rarely on the
defensive. Few players were so insistent on, and successful at, gaining
the initiative early in the game.

I wish I had said that; you're a very insightful guy. (Let me
guess: IM Innes told you Alekhine was a world champ?)

No, I learned it from Neil "the Historian" Brennen, who was tutored
by none other than Herodotus.

Some years ago I acquired and reviewed "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games, 1902-1946" (McFarland, 1998), which has every game he ever
played that survives -- over 2,500 of them. Looking at its openings
index, the most frequently played openings a

1. QGD Orthodox -- about 335 games
2. Ruy Lopez -- 330
3. French Defense -- 240
4. Other symmetrical QP -- 175
5. Sicilian -- 165
6. QGD Slav/Semi-Slav -- 125
7. Nimzo-Indian -- 100
8-9. Caro-Kann -- 90
8-9. Vienna Game -- 90
10. Queen's Indian -- 70

It would be interesting to weed out the choices made
by his opponents, leaving only the choices indicating
Alekhine's own openings preferences.

Indeed, an interesting project. Post your results here when you have
completed it.

For example,
1.e4 c6 leads to a Caro-Kan, yet if Alekhine had White
this in no way implies that he prefered that opening;
rather, it indicates that his opponent did.

Yet the fact that Alekhine played 1.e4 indicates definite
non-hypermodern tendencies. One of the hypermodern rallying cries was
"After 1.e4 White's game is in its last throes!" (Breyer)

help bot wrote:

(,,)


For example,
1.e4 c6 leads to a Caro-Kan, yet if Alekhine had White
this in no way implies that he prefered that opening;
rather, it indicates that his opponent did.

*
-Nail on head, Bot. Long time ago, when I'd regularly play as a guest on
icc, my preference as white was (1) kf3, (2) e3, never mind what black
played. An icc function logged all those openings with names exotic. It
really was 'news' to me..

Yet the fact that Alekhine played 1.e4 indicates definite
non-hypermodern tendencies. One of the hypermodern rallying cries was
"After 1.e4 White's game is in its last throes!" (Breyer)

I took that remark as a joke. It goes without saying
that, even after 1.e4?!, White can probably defend to
hold a draw. For example, after 1.e4 Nf6! 2.Qe2 b6
3.g3! Bb7 4.Bg2, White is threatening to defend his
strong point on d5 via the manouver d3, Nd2, Nf1, Ne3.
And once that is accomplished, the secondary manuever
h3, Rh2, Qf1, Qh1 secures the point d5 permanently.
So the key question is, can Black achieve as much in
the same number of moves (or less)? If not, his only
significant advantage lies in not having committed any
of his central pawns to the fourth rank -- and that, alone,
may not be enough to carry the day against perfect,
stubborn defense by White.

-- hyper bot

help bot wrote:

Yet the fact that Alekhine played 1.e4 indicates definite
non-hypermodern tendencies. One of the hypermodern rallying cries was
"After 1.e4 White's game is in its last throes!" (Breyer)

I took that remark as a joke. It goes without saying
that, even after 1.e4?!, White can probably defend to
hold a draw. For example, after 1.e4 Nf6! 2.Qe2 b6
3.g3! Bb7 4.Bg2, White is threatening to defend his
strong point on d5 via the manouver d3, Nd2, Nf1, Ne3.
And once that is accomplished, the secondary manuever
h3, Rh2, Qf1, Qh1 secures the point d5 permanently.
So the key question is, can Black achieve as much in
the same number of moves (or less)? If not, his only
significant advantage lies in not having committed any
of his central pawns to the fourth rank -- and that, alone,
may not be enough to carry the day against perfect,
stubborn defense by White.

-- hyper bot
*

---------Yeah, suppose so. 1) Nf3, Nf6 2) e3, d5 3) Bb5+ is sortoff the
Ruy transposition. Yeah. - Btw, that spunky GM chick (Kiaolis? sp.?) is
a semi-finalist in the crass 'dancing with the stars' TV programme here.
I must confess my interest is piqued. Will she win this one?!..