On Mar 29, 4:20*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...

* Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.

**Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it up
so much with White.

*Could you
amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
KID theory.

**Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess in
the late 30s in Europe.

I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the
KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and
Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to
bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King
Hunt in Chess, page 51

Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as
White against the KID. In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3 (though some of these are Grünfelds),
beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes, Yates.

On Mar 29, 11:39 am, wrote:

White: A. Alekhine, Black: F. D.Yates

Okay, I found the game (I think) and was
very surprised to learn that Mr. Yates had
twice beaten young Alekhine as Black in
these games.

Yates, born in 1884, was about 8 years older than Alekhine. At the
time of game Innes gives, from Carlsbad 1923, Yates was about 39,
Alekhine about 31.
Yates was Britain's best player for nearly 20 years, from around
1913 until his premature death in 1932. He won the BCF title six times
in all 1913-1931. He was not of topmost international rank, but he had
a knack for beating the very best, winning against such greats as
Alekhine (twice), Rubinstein (3 times), Bogolyubov (also 3 times),
Tarrasch, Maroczy, and Nimzovitch.
The 1923 Alekhine KID is probably the most anthologized of Yates'
games.


The commentary at www.chessgames.com
suggested that the two wins were actually
the same game, entered twice, with different
headers and some changes in the order of
moves and the point of resignation.

But one entry had Larry Parr jumping in to
say that Bobby Fischer's dismissal of the very
existence of such games was erroneous; that
they really happened, etc.

Still, there is the matter of which moves
were actually played, and in what exact order.
For instance, I found the idea of ...a5, played
*before* Black played ...N/b-d7, to be rather
lame. Black also tossed out an early ...b6 --
thereby fixing all his Queen-side pawns and
annihilating what is often called their "dynamic
potential" (or simply, flexibility), much like the
way I usually play, out of long-standing habit.
That, in conjunction with the ...Nc6-b8 thing
left my jaw gaping.

I do know this much: every time I looked up
one of the lesser-known players that GM
Alekhine defeated in this book, My Best
Games of Chess, I was surprised to find that
they were better than I had thought, and also
that AA had beaten them at their respective
peaks! This is the opposite of what I had
grown accustomed to.


-- help bot

On Mar 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...

well, thank you,

but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
themselves

I think Mr. IMnes missed my point: few readers
are going to set up a board next to their computers
to look at a half-game manually, which is why I
joked about including /a diagram/.

Personally, if I see a link I may click it and then
play over the moves up to point X, then stop to
have a think. Note that no chess engine is even
involved at this point.


and see if they could find a couple of traps

The only traps I see are those which might net
White's b-pawn. The nonsense with smothered
mate is just too obvious to even consider, unless
this game involved, say, Rob Mitchell or the
GetClub program.


not librarians

An obvious shot at Nick Bourbaki; get past
it, already!... life goes on... you can't dwell on
past injuries forever (or can you?).


to anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense of
what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all


This is not a valid point here, since Dr.
Alekhine did not play well enough for us
to imagine the further course of the game
"revealed" anything hidden.


i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you never
need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve


Nonsense. I had a look at ...Ng4, to deflect
White's Queen, and in just two minutes I found
the riposte: Bxg7!, winning. I'd say that is an
improvement, since I often lose to such moves
OTB. ;D


its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
which alekhine saw and avoided


Remember, we understand your difficulties
with communications. It's not everyone who
can type with a pen held between the teeth,
AND spell hard words, while sipping beer
through a straw at the same time.


the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4


The obvious move is ...Nd3, but where is
this supposed "shock"?

Here is what I found a bit shocking: my
computer thinks Black is fine after all this
skipping around with the same Knight, to
and fro; normally, it considers a space
advantage to be of considerable value, but
not here.


and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the question
being, 'can white capture e.p.?'


IMO, Dr. Alekhine messed up by taking on
f1 with the Rook, so the real question should
be: "what the heck are you talking about?"

After such an error, the capture may be bad
but this involves accepting White's prior move
as a given, which is rather silly.


the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
those very early oppotunities did to encourage the understanding of serious
players to deploy it


Hey, I seem to have missed something;
where did you here trace the evolution of
the KID? As far as I can see, you did not
even give a single precursor or "stem game"
to this one, although you did mention
something about this one giving a boost to
the *popularity* of the KID.

Generally speaking, you need to tell us
the origins of the opening, or perhaps the
fianchetto idea itself, before laying such
claims. Even a link to an article some-
where else could suffice (but bluster falls
a tad short).


-- help bot

On Mar 29, 3:58 pm, wrote:

Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you
amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
KID theory.

Here is how the standard translation reads,
as taken from gww.jibberishinterpreters.org:

"Max Euwe stomped all over the King's Indian
Defense, when playing the White pieces."

These guys(?) claim to be able to accurately
interpret the jibberings of even the lowliest human,
but then, what do they really know if they haven't
been to rgc?


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 4:20 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.

**Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it
up
so much with White.

Could you
amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
KID theory.

**Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess
in
the late 30s in Europe.

I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the
KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and
Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to
bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King
Hunt in Chess, page 51

Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as
White against the KID. In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3 (though some of these are Grünfelds),
beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes, Yates.

--

Its also notable, therefore, that Russian efforts to revitalize the KID did
not show up in Europe in the years immediately before the war. Euwe was in
Russia in 1934 before any new KID material appeared - but even after the war
the work by Korn, Griffiths and Sergeant, appearing in 1946 had no glimmer
of any analysis by Rauzer or Boleslavsky. Similarly, Soviet theoreticians on
the French Defence are entirely absent, and these would be from Botvinnik,
Konstantinopolsky, Belavenets, Rauzer and Kan.

Similarly the Queen's Gambit and Indian defences lacks mention of Levenfish,
Bondarevsky, Ragozin, Makogonov &c.

Now - the thing of it is, although these became a plaint by the Russians on
the worth of Western chess literature [and the poverty of its researches] it
was nevertheless not a naive elimination - it was a deliberated one on the
part of the Soviets not to share information.

This situation continued until approximately 1961, and even then Soviet
publications on chess were hardly candid - suggesting some dead-end lines,
while ignoring ones with more prospect.

If anyone really wants to comprehend the real stature of the chess-art or
Robert Fischer - then they must appreciate this fact, that to very large
degree Western chess literature was hardly sustainable at the GM level.
Perforce, when more Soviets began to play in the West the cat was out of the
bag, and Western players were stimulated to look much deeper, indeed, to
look directly at the Russian literature on chess. Not even the main ones,
but those obscure little technical bulletins, signaling for internal use,
that there was something worth exploring.

This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps not
as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play than
current era players achieve.

Cordially, Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...

well, thank you,

but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
themselves

I think Mr. IMnes missed my point: few readers
are going to set up a board next to their computers
to look at a half-game manually, which is why I
joked about including /a diagram/.

This is a text medium - and I think for some, 'jokes' are anything requiring
work and actual chess insight.

Personally, if I see a link I may click it and then
play over the moves up to point X, then stop to
have a think. Note that no chess engine is even
involved at this point.

I DID say it was in my column - with 3 or 4 diagrams at key moments...

and see if they could find a couple of traps

The only traps I see are those which might net
White's b-pawn. The nonsense with smothered
mate is just too obvious to even consider, unless
this game involved, say, Rob Mitchell or the
GetClub program.

Yet at least one of those players tries to work things out for themselves

Not make after-the-fact predictions.

not librarians

An obvious shot at Nick Bourbaki; get past
it, already!... life goes on... you can't dwell on
past injuries forever (or can you?).


to anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any
sense of
what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all


This is not a valid point here, since Dr.
Alekhine did not play well enough for us
to imagine the further course of the game
"revealed" anything hidden.

The very point is that most people will not even appreciate any of the traps
that Alekhine avoided - never mind make facetious commentary on how well he
played.


i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you
never
need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve


Nonsense. I had a look at ...Ng4, to deflect
White's Queen, and in just two minutes I found
the riposte: Bxg7!, winning. I'd say that is an
improvement, since I often lose to such moves
OTB. ;D

A great move, no doubt, but when did it occur?

its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
which alekhine saw and avoided


Remember, we understand your difficulties

If you cannot do better than trash all real chess threads, then perhaps you
should only instruct Sanny? And since that is computer chess, why not
transport yourselves over there. You will be able to get away with any
advice - since they don't know much chess. To stay here and be credible
about chess, means to at least attempt the subject matter.

with communications. It's not everyone who
can type with a pen held between the teeth,
AND spell hard words, while sipping beer
through a straw at the same time.


the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4


The obvious move is ...Nd3, but where is
this supposed "shock"?

I rather doubt the mate is so obvious to anyone, even after cueing people
that something is afoot!

Here is what I found a bit shocking: my
computer thinks Black is fine after all this
skipping around with the same Knight, to
and fro; normally, it considers a space
advantage to be of considerable value, but
not here.


and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the
question
being, 'can white capture e.p.?'


IMO, Dr. Alekhine messed up by taking on
f1 with the Rook, so the real question should
be: "what the heck are you talking about?"

Two corrections. Alekhine did not adopt his legal doctorate title until
after he achieved it, and the second is chessic - so that if you propose an
18th move, do you declare that black is not better, and white is ok? Spell
it out for yourself first, then tell us.

After such an error, the capture may be bad
but this involves accepting White's prior move
as a given, which is rather silly.


the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
those very early oppotunities did to encourage the understanding of
serious
players to deploy it


Hey, I seem to have missed something;
where did you here trace the evolution of
the KID? As far as I can see, you did not
even give a single precursor or "stem game"
to this one, although you did mention
something about this one giving a boost to
the *popularity* of the KID.

And every stem game has an even earlier one? So where to start? My point was
that to score with black against the guy who would be W CH next year was to
establish the variation at the top level, then to trace its fortunes.

Generally speaking, you need to tell us
the origins of the opening, or perhaps the
fianchetto idea itself, before laying such
claims.

You personally? Who is "us"?

For sure you can regress 50 years and establish examples of hyper-modernism
then, except lots of the games were daft, and black's prospects from his
position not well worked out.

Even a link to an article some-
where else could suffice (but bluster falls
a tad short).

If /you/ want to know something you can't do for yourself, being indigent,
then you could ask for what /you/ want, and not confuse that with other
things.

As it is, if you can't be bothered to shift the pieces around for 18 moves,
then you will learn nothing if others do your thinking for you.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

On Mar 31, 8:05*am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 29, 4:20 pm, "Chess One" wrote:





wrote in message

...

Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.

**Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it
up
so much with White.

Could you
amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
KID theory.

**Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess
in
the late 30s in Europe.

* I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the
KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and
Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to
bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King
Hunt in Chess, page 51

* Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as
White against the KID. In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3 (though some of these are Grünfelds),
beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes, Yates.

--

Its also notable, therefore, that Russian efforts to revitalize the KID did
not show up in Europe in the years immediately before the war. Euwe was in
Russia in 1934 before any new KID material appeared - but even after the war
the work by Korn, Griffiths and Sergeant, appearing in 1946 had no glimmer
of any analysis by Rauzer or Boleslavsky.

Quite right, Phil. The 1946 MCO does not even give the King's Indian
its own section, it's just one of many "queen's pawn games." Page 202
says of the KID that it has "practically disappeared from master
play ... The best line for White is the fianchetto of his King's
Bishop, coupled with an early P-K4. This leaves him in full command of
the centre, and Black's game in this variation is almost lost after
the opening."

Similarly, Soviet theoreticians on
the French Defence are entirely absent, and these would be from Botvinnik,
Konstantinopolsky, Belavenets, Rauzer and Kan.

Similarly the Queen's Gambit and Indian defences lacks mention of Levenfish,
Bondarevsky, Ragozin, Makogonov &c.

Yes, any glimmer of that had to wait for the Soviets' "coming out
party" in 1946, and even then little of it got to the West.

Now - the thing of it is, although these became a plaint by the Russians on
the worth of Western chess literature [and the poverty of its researches] it
was nevertheless not a naive elimination - it was a deliberated one on the
part of the Soviets not to share information.

This situation continued until approximately 1961, and even then Soviet
publications on chess were hardly candid - suggesting some dead-end lines,
while ignoring ones with more prospect.

The old "salting the mine" trick. Even Kasparov has used it.

If anyone really wants to comprehend the real stature of the chess-art or
Robert Fischer - then they must appreciate this fact, that to very large
degree Western chess literature was hardly sustainable at the GM level.
Perforce, when more Soviets began to play in the West the cat was out of the
bag, and Western players were stimulated to look much deeper, indeed, to
look directly at the Russian literature on chess. Not even the main ones,
but those obscure little technical bulletins, signaling for internal use,
that there was something worth exploring.

This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps not
as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play than
current era players achieve.

Cordially, Phil Innes

On Mar 31, 8:05 am, "Chess One" wrote:

This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps not
as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play than
current era players achieve.


That theory smacks of whiny excuse-making.
"I didn't win the title because I lacked technique,
though I was far more creative than the guy who
beat me." Sheesh. Why not settle for "I was
better looking" or "I am a much nicer guy"?

The reality is that there is no such correlation
between lower Elo ratings and creativity. As
we saw from earlier eras, sometimes the so-
called creative players lose due to blunders,
but sometimes the fact is that their superiors
are simply more creative than they are, if not
quite as eccentric. Idunno, but to me, one of
the most "creative" players of all time was
Paul Morphy-- the man who created wins, as
Black, out of moves like p-h3!

BTW, when I was playing a lot more than I do
today, the definitive source on opening ideas
was considered to be the German bis series,
not Russian stuff; that is to say, considered by
the top western writers. Yet when I came into
possession of some low-priced /Informants/
copycat publications out of Yugoslavia, I noted
that the games contained superior ideas to
those I was accustomed to seeing by western
authors. The Russian satellite area: Hungary,
Yugoslavia and others, was perhaps exposed
to ideas from both sides -- east and west -- to
some degree. Or maybe they were just
stronger, so their ideas simply made a better
impression.

All this nonsense about the greatest generation
and "my gen. is more creative than yours" is a
bunch of hooey, technically speaking. Every gen.
does the same thing, makes the same whiny
complaints, and it is only a matter of time before
even my generation starts doing it-- the fools.


-- help bot

On Mar 31, 9:02 am, "Chess One" wrote:


I think Mr. IMnes missed my point: few readers
are going to set up a board next to their computers
to look at a half-game manually, which is why I
joked about including /a diagram/.

I DID say it was in my column - with 3 or 4 diagrams at key moments...


But you did *not* include a link. A common
error, to be sure, but an error nonetheless.


IMO, Dr. Alekhine messed up by taking on
f1 with the Rook, so the real question should
be: "what the heck are you talking about?"

Two corrections. Alekhine did not adopt his legal doctorate title until
after he achieved it


Ah, so you are claiming that he did not yet
have a doctorate at the time this game was
played. From what I've read, the title is
disputed altogether, and my use of such
terms is merely a tool to poke and jab
lightly at those who would don false titles;
know around anybody here like that?


and the second is chessic - so that if you propose an
18th move, do you declare that black is not better, and white is ok?


No, all I'm saying is that capturing the
wrong way makes the further course of
the game irrelevant insofar as "revealing"
hidden secrets about the move ...Qd6.

To me, the secrets of ...Qd6 can be
seen mainly in the course of correct
defense and correct attack.


Hey, I seem to have missed something;
where did you here trace the evolution of
the KID? As far as I can see, you did not
even give a single precursor or "stem game"
to this one, although you did mention
something about this one giving a boost to
the *popularity* of the KID.

And every stem game has an even earlier one? So where to start?


Julie Andrews covered that in the movie,
the Sound of Music. One starts at the
very beginning -- a very good place to
start. (Lets move on before one of us
breaks into song... .)


My point was
that to score with black against the guy who would be W CH next year was to
establish the variation at the top level, then to trace its fortunes.


Cool. I see a lot of flashback-style stuff
these days in the movies, but I still prefer
the cold logic of chronological-order, as
it avoids so many unnecessary issues.


Generally speaking, you need to tell us
the origins of the opening, or perhaps the
fianchetto idea itself, before laying such
claims.

You personally? Who is "us"?


All of us here; we are many, while you (the
writer) are but one. We are those who read
your drivel, and although you don't deserve
it, we number in the hundreds!


For sure you can regress 50 years and establish examples of hyper-modernism
then, except lots of the games were daft, and black's prospects from his
position not well worked out.


The plot thickens. It just seems a bit lame
to jump in at the 1920s, without a word said
regarding how Mr. Yates came to play this
line in the first place. As you said, it's a
flashback-style piece, so we cannot judge
until the fat lady sings.


As it is, if you can't be bothered to shift the pieces around for 18 moves,
then you will learn nothing if others do your thinking for you.


The chess board I use is on my computer;
hence, it makes sense to either have a link
to a graphic chessboard, or else to give us
a game score to import for viewing. Few
people will have a chess board set up next
to their computers, hoping for some half-
game from a lame-brain.

As for learning nothing from letting others
do one's thinking for you-- you seem to be
the world champion, so I will simply note
the fact and let you ponder why you feel
the need to project... .



-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 8:05 am, "Chess One" wrote:

This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps
not
as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play
than
current era players achieve.


That theory smacks of whiny excuse-making.
"I didn't win the title because I lacked technique,
though I was far more creative than the guy who
beat me." Sheesh. Why not settle for "I was
better looking" or "I am a much nicer guy"?

Because you are a cynical cudda bin who regularly contradicts very strong
players' opinions - reflexively and without thinking - its an emotional
response not a considered one, in this case you merely contradict 2 W Ch
candidates of the time.

Below, our resident reactor who can't even attest to his own name, continues
to rubbish even the idea that some generations were greater than others.

He should call his local school and ask them about current literacy rates or
numeracy rates.

Or his art school and ask them after great american painters on the level of
the impressionsists.

Then call his hospital and ask about gonnorhea rates among 12 years olds.

Then maybe call his Congressman and ask if he thought he and his colleagues
were built on the same scale as the Framers?

And finally of all, if the subject is chess, call some real chess players
who can actually bother to set up a game and play 18 moves of it, instead of
writing 10x as much non-chess material in a thread as the original post, and
of such evident numbness, insincerity and plain laziness.

Phil Innes



The reality is that there is no such correlation
between lower Elo ratings and creativity. As
we saw from earlier eras, sometimes the so-
called creative players lose due to blunders,
but sometimes the fact is that their superiors
are simply more creative than they are, if not
quite as eccentric. Idunno, but to me, one of
the most "creative" players of all time was
Paul Morphy-- the man who created wins, as
Black, out of moves like p-h3!

BTW, when I was playing a lot more than I do
today, the definitive source on opening ideas
was considered to be the German bis series,
not Russian stuff; that is to say, considered by
the top western writers. Yet when I came into
possession of some low-priced /Informants/
copycat publications out of Yugoslavia, I noted
that the games contained superior ideas to
those I was accustomed to seeing by western
authors. The Russian satellite area: Hungary,
Yugoslavia and others, was perhaps exposed
to ideas from both sides -- east and west -- to
some degree. Or maybe they were just
stronger, so their ideas simply made a better
impression.

All this nonsense about the greatest generation
and "my gen. is more creative than yours" is a
bunch of hooey, technically speaking. Every gen.
does the same thing, makes the same whiny
complaints, and it is only a matter of time before
even my generation starts doing it-- the fools.


-- help bot