On Feb 17, 10:00 am, (SAT W-7) wrote:

I understand about giving lessons to make money but lets project your
living for a full year can you make it then as a lower rated GM without
having a full time job ?

My friend, I have already described a fellow
who "makes it" from a position several classes
BELOW the GM level! Now, perhaps his
standard of living is not particularly high, is not
good enough for a person who, it might be
assumed, could get a well-paying job in some
other filed if he wanted.

The difference is that the local-yokel must
scrap day by day, while the GM has a title for
life; the GM can, for instance, get online and
make money from home giving online lessons,
or he can give simuls or choose to travel and
compete for prize money; in sum, he has a
great advantage.


At the very least money that i can live on is about I,I50 $ a month
, mortgage , bills and gas , food , ect , ect ......That would just
barley get me by i think ?

Who said anything about home-ownership?
Hey, you can't take it with you! Try a nice,
inexpensive apartment and live on the cheap;
remember, you won't be needing that tax
deduction you get for mortgage interest
because as a chess professional, you will
be in a low, low tax bracket. OTOH, if you
are raising a family, you should be shot for
mucking around with chess; keep your house,
your wife and kids, and give up the less
important things. Like chess; of course, you
knew that was less important... right?


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 9:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.

Well, look at Anatoly Karpov: he actually played
chess, as you say, and made very good money.

Others in a similar position chose not to "play",
and made far less.

Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it at
chess.



But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do
that?

You mean, like girls and stuff?

Like normal socialisation.

Gee, I don't have
time for that now, but *after* I get the title -- which is
really mine since about 1962 when the Russkies

I didn't know the Russkies gave titles for C players? Or is it B?

You sometimes remind me of one of those historiy of the navy fans who use
rather more naval terms than do real sailors.

conspired against me 'cause I'm so great -- afterward
I will have a house shaped like a Rook, and lots and
lots of girls, ya know, just for decoration. Mainly I
just want to play chess; no, make that: all I ever
want to do is play chess!

What's a bit sad Greg, is that maybe you are not aware that you just /may
be/ projecting onto Fischer your own little fantasy?

a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic
talent,
he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation

Nah. First of all, if his /talent/ is as great as you
suggest, then he would likely still make it through
the /first/ round; its the later rounds that would tend
to show him to be "rusty" -- when he is truly tested
by players of his own caliber.

That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that it
is not Agassi's own? It is not unknown in chess - two examples eg, are
Fischer and more currently Topalov. Both need to play themselves in.

Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come on
strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
Spassky, and been eliminated.

And secondly, again, /talent/ is not the preparation
of tricky moves in the openings;

Yes - i don't think it is /all/ preparation and tricks - preparation is also
performance based, which deals with what happens to you OTB. This is often
thought to be the reason for training matches.

think of Emanuel
Lasker or Sammy Reshevsky instead. Who cares
if a few recent opening developments are missed?

Would rather depend how few and how recent. But again, whose opinion is
this? Since I am perhaps considerably stronger than you, I must mediate your
idea from your level of play with seriously hairy great Russian GMs, who do
not agree with you. I am much less sure of these things than you.

An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.

A talented player does not rely on study and hard
work, but his, um, talent.

Your opinion again Greg? Don't people we call genius, in chess and
generally, often say 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration?

For an example, just
disable Rybka's openings book; yes, it fumbles a
few things early on, but so what? in the end, this
matters little.

I notice the middle game comes between the opening and the end. Certainly at
Corus I didn't see anyone fumbling the opening and surviving the middle
game. Did you? But the real test is not speculate on Rybka, but to see if
what you say is true or no without books or gimics.

b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner
and
Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been
checking
this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his
reply
about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in
his
own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."

A scientific approach suggests determining
what strong players /actually do/, not what they
/say/ about what they do. Food for munching on.

Sure it is. Its easier for people to understand a concrete visual metaphor-
which is probably why that is offered - ["do you get the picture?"] but not
necessarily a representation of what is going on.

Heck, if you ask weak players what they do,
they often say they play good moves but are
unlucky. If you ask middling players, they say
much the same thing, pointing to being out-
booked or to a single tactical error, as if *it*
were an offending third party which intervened!
Why should strong players be believed, then?

That is a non-sequiter to perception in chess and its representation.

And chess is not usual - it is often as difficult to talk about /what
happens/ as ... music! In fact, in order to make this parallel comment
Adorjan replied with the following question [which is not about playing
chess, but about how we understand stuff]

How does the concert pianist virtuoso [you must imagine him without
sheet-music] know the exact weight to apply to his little finger at the
10,000th note?

One might add to 'weight', speed, timing/tempo, and other factors.

Now consider 3 things:

a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?

and if not, would you prefer to ask a

a) concert pianist
b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
...

One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~

if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?

Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999,
and
Khalifman proved it!

You mean, like an exact arrangement, as per
the FIDE list? That is silly. The unique thing
about such an event would be that the number
of participants would preclude a thorough
openings preparation for any particular opponent.

Are you agreeing with Adorjan?

You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this 'test'
of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for 300
possible opponents - how will it all end?

Instead of "TNs" prepared for particular players,
we would see TNs which are prepared for just
anybody.

Sure!

I don't think it is wise to mollycoddle those
who may be in denial of the validity of ratings;
to readily adopt their unique interpretations on
this to comfort them, or those who make such
comments regarding chess as an art, rather
than a sport.

That is a bit too far here. Since I assume your agreement, let's not rush to
any rash conclusions, and neither excuse nor condemn why it is. One thing to
do at this point is to cast the question around to some other people, and
attend on their views, pro and con and dunno - and then actually assess the
consequences.

Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he think
that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth inviting?

When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end by
emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players simply
innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
window while draws come in the back door?

Phil Innes

It is clear to me that had such
players won, some would likely be among
the nasty types who deride their opponents'
characters or laziness, but because they
have lost, they have a certain /need/ to explain,
to justify the (partial) failure.

Let us instead try to remain objective. Prove
that the winners, the world champions and so
forth, were lacking in "art"; prove that these
"losers" had lots more of it, or of superior
quality; prove this *objectively*, my friend.

As for me, I have my own opinions regarding
which players were artful or creative, and it
seems to have nothing to do with their relative
success in competition, except that by being
successful, I was more likely to later see and
study their games, after the fact. A few of the
real artists were world champs-- just accept it.


-- help bot

On Feb 19, 11:00 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it at
chess.

So, you are suggesting that all the people I've
played -- none of them in the top-50 in the world
-- were starving, or else they had some other
sources of income? I find that rather silly; it
looked to me that they were not merely getting
by, but traveling the country -- including the
really boring parts, like here. OTOH, most of
these events take place on the weekends, so
who knows but that some folks can manage a
"day job" AND still find time to travel and play
chess?


I didn't know the Russkies gave titles for C players? Or is it B?

Sure are a lot of uninformed people around
these parts! In the Gulag, you get a title
just for being strong enough to sit at a chess
board and push the pieces around; they are
made from the bones of rats, which of course
is the primary source of protein. The boards
are drawn by hand in the dirt-- the one thing
in abundance there. Class B is a pipe
dream; half the pieces are eaten before a
game can end (calcium, you know).


You sometimes remind me of one of those historiy of the navy fans who use
rather more naval terms than do real sailors.

Hard to larbard! Full speed ahead!
All engines full ahead. Whats that?

Oh, yes of course, I forgot-- cast off!;
untie is from the dock thingies, errr...


That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that it
is not Agassi's own?

I am not so much interested in what these
folks *say*, as in the hard facts as indicated
by what they *do*. This is a key difference
betwixt thee and me.

Example: a fellow named Gary Kasparov
*said* he did not release his Knight; yet the
cameras proved he in fact did release it. I
am impressed by the fact of his release, but
you are probably still stuck on GK's denial of
the fact. Stuck, like a stick in the mud, you
can't grok the proved fact of his cheating.


Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come on
strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
Spassky, and been eliminated.

No, it means he would have refused to play,
on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.
(And why should he be paired against BS in
the *first* round, pray tell? I say pair him
with Arnold Denker or Art Bisguire.)


Would rather depend how few and how recent. But again, whose opinion is
this? Since I am perhaps considerably stronger than you

You can bench 100 kilos? I can't see it;
not long ago you said you were three (?)
kilometers tall, so how do you even fit on
the bench? Probably all leg... .


I must mediate your
idea from your level of play with seriously hairy great Russian GMs

This can only be a reference to one man:
the renowned girl-cheater, Gary Kasparov!
If he thinks you're strong, then okay.


An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.

Was it really his funky play which
prevailed-- or his good moves later on?

Look at my brilliancy against the GC
Master level; I did not win because of
my silly first move, 1. a3, but because
I followed it with moves which were
superior to the Master level's. Look
/deeper/.


I notice the middle game comes between the opening and the end. Certainly at
Corus I didn't see anyone fumbling the opening and surviving the middle
game. Did you?

I was big game hunting in the arctic at the
time; sorry. Thank goodness for those bear-
scare fireworks! And of course, bear mace.
(You can't legally kill or beat-up a bear, even
in self defense, because they are endangered.)


But the real test is not speculate on Rybka, but to see if
what you say is true or no without books or gimics.

The pawn odds matches told a tale; even
with a huge opening advantage AND a pawn,
some GMs lose like carrots to Rybka in the
middle game.


How does the concert pianist virtuoso [you must imagine him without
sheet-music] know the exact weight to apply to his little finger at the
10,000th note?

A: He doesn't. A machine can play better
(i.e. more precisely) than any human can--
just as with chess.


One might add to 'weight', speed, timing/tempo, and other factors.

Consumer Reports blindfolded several
"expert" wine tasters, and the result was
that they could not reliably tell white from
red. (Much ado is the old story of The
Emperor's New Clothes.)

How much is presumption of perfection,
and how much is /measured/ perfection?


Now consider 3 things:

a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?

I prefer to guess; it's more fun, you see.


and if not, would you prefer to ask a

a) concert pianist
b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists

I would prefer to know the question, then
decide on the appropriate action.


-- help bot

On Feb 19, 11:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Are you agreeing with Adorjan?

No. IMO, what GM Adorjan and so many
others like him are doing, is reminiscing about
the "good old days". Their commentaries are
nothing more than psychology-based attempts
to dismiss the modern, and pretend that all
things were better in their own heydays, back
when they themselves were in their primes.

I take a very different approach; even though
I am not fond of the way things are now, and
even though I don't particularly like many of
the changes which have occurred since my
prime-time years of old, I have no need to go
into a state of denial or pretend that things
were ever so hunky-dory way back when.


You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this 'test'
of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for 300
possible opponents - how will it all end?

How about taking a more scientific approach
to this "thesis" of his? You need to construct
a test which factors in things like chance, and
obviously, a counter-thesis which is equally
likely to be "confirmed" as his, if the results
fall a certain way. But the single most
important thing is to make the thesis and the
test of it known publicly /in advance/, and to
consistently follow up, no matter what the
outcome.

Otherwise you get what is known as cherry-
picking: the fine art of reporting one's hand-
picked successes, while remaining mum on
the predictions which have failed-- that sort of
thing.


Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he think
that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth inviting?

Why the need to filter /through him/? The
fewer these stages of "interpretation", the more
accurate and more realistic will be our picture
of the facts.


When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end by
emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players simply
innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
window while draws come in the back door?

The only draws which seem to be truly
objectionable are the illegitimate ones, the
ones which are not contested but arranged
as such. Legitimate draws appear to be a
fundamental part of the game, and in my
own experience, are an excellent way of
providing an intermediate stepping stone
between the weak and the strong players.
Without legitimate draws, there would be
less incentive for weak players to compete
with the strong ones; they would feel even
more out-classed, and unable to compete
with their vast superiors (that's people like
me and I suppose, Larry Evans). :D


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 11:00 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it
at
chess.

So, you are suggesting that all the people I've
played -- none of them in the top-50 in the world
-- were starving, or else they had some other
sources of income?

I think you might stick to things you know about, like Sanny's computer, and
stop messing around with things you don't. since this is the 3rd correction
already to the same poing - this time you have introduced the term
'starving'.

That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that
it
is not Agassi's own?

I am not so much interested in what these
folks *say*, as in the hard facts as indicated
by what they *do*. This is a key difference
betwixt thee and me.

I see. Kennedy contra-mundam!

Example: a fellow named Gary Kasparov
*said* he did not release his Knight; yet the
cameras proved he in fact did release it. I
am impressed by the fact of his release, but
you are probably still stuck on GK's denial of
the fact.

Probably? Why do you even bother talking to other people - you are having
too much fun on your own.

Stuck, like a stick in the mud, you
can't grok the proved fact of his cheating.

Having introduced this straw-man argument - what would you like to do next,
please discuss it with yourself and let yourself know.

Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come
on
strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
Spassky, and been eliminated.

No, it means he would have refused to play,
on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.

Ha! having taken a dig at GK, Its now Fischer's turn, the same Fischer who
took on the World's strongest players. I have [laugh] never seen anyone play
chess with the black pieces like Fischer who didn't seem to give a damn
about making draws -- but I see you draw different conclusions from his
lifetime's play from everyone else. That of course doesn't mean you are
wrong.

(And why should he be paired against BS in
the *first* round, pray tell? I say pair him
with Arnold Denker or Art Bisguire.)

Though, while you opinion is not necessarily wrong, such petty wheedling
comments on singular issues are definitly not right to assess the player.
Its as if you wanted to bring GK and Fischer down to your level, but I think
you never climbed high enough up the mountain to even see the top, nevermind
attempt a perspective from it.

--------

An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.

Was it really his funky play which
prevailed-- or his good moves later on?

either or? How about both?

Look at my brilliancy against the GC
Master level;

no that, and your reference to it, are totally stupid.


Now consider 3 things:

a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?

I prefer to guess; it's more fun, you see.


and if not, would you prefer to ask a

a) concert pianist
b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists

I would prefer to know the question, then
decide on the appropriate action.

If you hadn't diverted yourself to such large extent, then perhaps you would
remember what it was - like the analogy of chess perception to the playing
of a 10,000th note by a virtuoso. But this was just yesterday Greg! And you
have come to grief against all sorts of people here recently based on dreams
memories and reflections of much older, more elusive materials.

Seriously, you might consier sticking to writing about what you can engage
others in as exploration of a topic, since otherwise it not only drains them
engaging you, but all sense goes down the drain too. I am just trying to be
helpful.

Cordially, Help Phil


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 11:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Are you agreeing with Adorjan?

No. IMO, what GM Adorjan and so many
others like him are doing, is reminiscing about
the "good old days".

Again you ignor whatever was the issue to raise your own. Did you already
forget the question was about ELO-related performance of the top 300
players? Perhaps if you didnt snip the question, then you could answer the
question, instead of free-relating on your own somewhat marked interest
which is at the expense of strong ches splayers?

Their commentaries are
nothing more than psychology-based attempts
to dismiss the modern, and pretend that all
things were better in their own heydays, back
when they themselves were in their primes.

I take a very different approach; even though
I am not fond of the way things are now, and
even though I don't particularly like many of
the changes which have occurred since my
prime-time years of old, I have no need to go
into a state of denial or pretend that things
were ever so hunky-dory way back when.


You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this
'test'
of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for
300
possible opponents - how will it all end?

How about taking a more scientific approach
to this "thesis" of his? You need to construct
a test which factors in things like chance, and
obviously, a counter-thesis which is equally
likely to be "confirmed" as his, if the results
fall a certain way. But the single most
important thing is to make the thesis and the
test of it known publicly /in advance/, and to
consistently follow up, no matter what the
outcome.

I think this cannot be resolved theoretically - but by /in vivo/ testing -
that is to say, have a huge GM-bash, and see what happens.

Otherwise you get what is known as cherry-
picking: the fine art of reporting one's hand-
picked successes, while remaining mum on
the predictions which have failed-- that sort of
thing.


Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he
think
that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth
inviting?

Why the need to filter /through him/? The
fewer these stages of "interpretation", the more
accurate and more realistic will be our picture
of the facts.

Because he was a W CH candidate, and his opinion is worth a lot on the state
of top level creativity, a lot more than mine. It is not an absolute thing,
but a relative thing - and his opinion is relatively more informed of the
nature of things by virtue of having done it.

When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end
by
emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players
simply
innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
window while draws come in the back door?

The only draws which seem to be truly
objectionable are the illegitimate ones, the
ones which are not contested but arranged
as such. Legitimate draws appear to be a
fundamental part of the game, and in my
own experience, are an excellent way of
providing an intermediate stepping stone
between the weak and the strong players.

?? I put a straight proposition to you, to follow your own point of a top
clicque players knowing overmuch about each others games, but you continue
as if to protest and protect the veracity of draws ?? Don't think it makes
some sense to establish what actually aqppear to be facts, before having to
rush to some pre-emtive defence of an opinion based on those facts?

Without legitimate draws, there would be
less incentive for weak players to compete
with the strong ones; they would feel even
more out-classed, and unable to compete
with their vast superiors (that's people like
me and I suppose, Larry Evans). :D

That is the opinion of people 'like you' about what you suppose of Larry
Evans.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

On Feb 21, 9:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

No, it means he would have refused to play,
on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.

Ha! having taken a dig at GK, Its now Fischer's turn, the same Fischer who
took on the World's strongest players.

Er, um... it seems to me that *every* world
champion does that sort of thing, as a matter
of necessity. You see, the title is usually
won by playing the world's strongest players.
(What's with the Bobby Fischer obsession?)


I have [laugh] never seen anyone play
chess with the black pieces like Fischer who didn't seem to give a damn
about making draws

Try studying the history of chess then. Dr.
Lasker played to win as Black, as did Paul
Morphy, Mikhail Tal, Gary Kasparov, and
gawd knows how many others; you would
of course have realized that, were you not
so *obsessed* with just one famous player!


- but I see you draw different conclusions from his
lifetime's play from everyone else.

When "everyone" is thinking the same
way, no one is truly thinking. This is, I
expect, one of the founding principles of
the Evans ratpack: not thinking.


That of course doesn't mean you are wrong.

Of course not. Generally speaking, what
makes me "wrong" in the sense you mean is
that I report facts you can't handle, psycho-
logically. For instance, in the 1972 world
championship cycle, certain things were not
exactly kosher; *one* example is the way in
which BF qualified. Had all these oddities
happened to have resulted in a Russian
victory, we all know the inevitable result
would be that the western press would have
cried foul. But since "we" won, any such
complaints must be kept -- you know -- hush,
hush.


Seriously, you might consier sticking to writing about what you can engage
others in as exploration of a topic

The truth is, it is neigh well impossible to
do that sort of thing with the nearly-IMnes
creature; it is, after all, a vile beast which
is a mind-slave to the Evans ratpack; which
is unable to communicate in plain English
when the going gets tough; which is so
obsessed with connecting itself to others
of famous name that it cannot even write its
own opinions, but instead it must pretend
as though it were a sort of conduit for greater
beings -- gods, to its mind -- whose whims
are the only substance in which it can swim.

The beast has no intellect, no thoughtful
touchstone with which to connect; it is a
vacuous creature, and we, the human folk,
ought to be ashamed for reveling in its
torture, its misery, for poking and prodding
the beast to watch how it reacts.

In a recent news story, three boys were
attacked by a tiger in a zoo; it turns out
that they had been harrying the creature,
and it jumped its protective moat and gave
them what for. I felt *no* sympathy; yet I
am no innocent here; I too am guilty of a
somewhat similar crime; it's a character
flaw, I admit.

Help me to stop, by ceasing your own
pathetic behavior: the mindless parroting
of others, the name-droppings ala a flock
of pigeons, the pretense and "putting on
airs", as Mark Twain called it. Write like
a human being, and do it in real English
so you can be understood. Think for
yourself for a change, and stop being a
mindless parrot, possessed by others.
Who knows-- you might like it!


-- help bot