Frank & Etj718,

thank you for your kind words. I have devoted a few words
to the first four players on Frank's list:

Philidor Anderssen Steinitz and Morphy

In my opinion only the great Anderssen has no chance
to be considered as the best ever. The other three are
serious contenders. In particular let me add that
Philidor and Steinitz had succesfully performed also
against the players who were much younger than themselves
(I mean than Philidor and Steinitz respectively).

The next two players on the list: Chigorin (1850 - 1908)
and Tarrasch deserve everybody's respect but they are
hardly number 1 candidates.

In one respect Chigorin was among the most important
personalities in the world of chess, namely in the terms
of his influence on the chess world. Before Chigorin
Russia had only Petrov (Petroff, Pietrov, Pietroff) and
Janisch (Yanisch), where Petrov was as strong as about
anybody at the time, it's very possible that he belonged
to the strict world chess elite of his time. Unfortunately
(? :-) he was a chess amateur, he had devoted his time to
the diplomatic career (and took it way more seriously than
Capablanca years later). Janisch was more of a theoretician
and chess writer than a strong tournament player.

Thus it was Michail Chigorin destiny to start and develope
serious chess movement in Russia. He learned chess relatively
late in his life, but once he got involved he gave it all.
That's why he is considered the father of the Russian chess.
He was both a chess organizer and a publisher of his own chess
magazine.

As a chess player there were times when he was
second only to Steinitz. He would beat Steinitz
in widely publicized games. For Steinitz, to Steinitz's
great credit, that was a reason to play title matches
against that difficult opponent Chigorin. They played
twice and Steinitz won both times, but the second match
was closed. It is interesting that Steinitz considered
Chigorin to be reopresentative of the "Old School",
while he himself represented the "Modern school", while
Stenitz was 14 years older than Chigorin. Steinitz meant
the Chigorin's romantic-Italian approach to chess, while
he himself was promoting his theory of the positional
chess. The reality was more complex. True, Chigorin
played gambits like no one else, he won late in his life
a thematic tournament devoted to classical gambits,
he also won a thematic match against Emanuel Lasker
himself.

On the other hand, Chigorin pioneered hypemodern ideas
way before the hypermodern movement was pronounced by
Reti and Tartakower.

Chigorin's chess philosophy was simple. He was against
any dogmas. Thus he was able to find to find exceptions
to Steinitz "laws". Chigorin believed, and in a sense
rightly so, that what ultimately counts is a concrete
analyses, that the final word belongs to the concrete
variations. He was not against general insights, he was
simply flexible. Chigorin's pragmatic-romantic (what a
combination! :-) presence was a forunate counter-balance
to the Steinitz's scientific euforia. And it is equally
important that Chigorin, like Zukertort earlier, kept
chess rich and excited. Sure, it is nice to follow
small advantages and fine end-games, but it is also nice
to have a variety and off the wall concepts and positions.

Any way you look at Michail Chigorin, he was a very
sympathetic, nice person, and that's how this great
player will be remembered.

***********

Siegbert Tarrasch used to claim to be the
"tournament world champion". Perhaps he was
during a span of a few years. And so were several
other players at one time or another. Tarrash was
also a strong theoretician. Tarrash Defense is still
popular today, it was a dangerous weapon in Spasski's
hands. He smoothed some of the Steinitz theory rough
spots. And still his theoretical contribution is not
equal in its importance to that of Philidor, Morphy,
Steinitz, Rubinstein or Tarrasch's nemezis Nimzovitz.

The uniqueness of the Tarrash role in chess somewhat
resembles that of Chigorin's: Tarrasch is called
the teacher of the German chessplayers. And of many
outside Germany too. For instance Tarrasch was Vidmar's
idol. Vidmar had an unbounded admiration for Tarrasch.
And then Vidmar did something unforgiveable (:-),
the youngster won against Tarrasch in a tournament.
How shocked was Vidmar, when Tarrasch reacted in a most
unpleasant way instead of simply congratulating the
promising player on his fine game. On the contrary,
Tarrasch asked Chigorin to get even with Vidmar, to
save his honor. It had to be very unpleasant to Vidmar,
but we, from the distance of years, are allowed to smile.

Tarrash was certainly a champion in the densely populated
field of great chess players making incredible excuses
for their loses.

He also should be remembered for his nostalgic:

chess, like music, like love, has the power
of making a man happy

something like this.

***************************

Best regards,

Wlod

Hi Wlod,

phantastic - where have you the knowledge of all these things?? Are
you the 'ghost-writer' from Kasparov ;-)??

PLEASE - continue :-))!

Regards
) Frank

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
Frank & Etj718,

thank you for your kind words. I have devoted a few words
to the first four players on Frank's list:

Philidor Anderssen Steinitz and Morphy

In my opinion only the great Anderssen has no chance
to be considered as the best ever. The other three are
serious contenders. In particular let me add that
Philidor and Steinitz had succesfully performed also
against the players who were much younger than themselves
(I mean than Philidor and Steinitz respectively).

The next two players on the list: Chigorin (1850 - 1908)
and Tarrasch deserve everybody's respect but they are
hardly number 1 candidates.

In one respect Chigorin was among the most important
personalities in the world of chess, namely in the terms
of his influence on the chess world. Before Chigorin
Russia had only Petrov (Petroff, Pietrov, Pietroff) and
Janisch (Yanisch), where Petrov was as strong as about
anybody at the time, it's very possible that he belonged
to the strict world chess elite of his time. Unfortunately
(? :-) he was a chess amateur, he had devoted his time to
the diplomatic career (and took it way more seriously than
Capablanca years later). Janisch was more of a theoretician
and chess writer than a strong tournament player.

Thus it was Michail Chigorin destiny to start and develope
serious chess movement in Russia. He learned chess relatively
late in his life, but once he got involved he gave it all.
That's why he is considered the father of the Russian chess.
He was both a chess organizer and a publisher of his own chess
magazine.

As a chess player there were times when he was
second only to Steinitz. He would beat Steinitz
in widely publicized games. For Steinitz, to Steinitz's
great credit, that was a reason to play title matches
against that difficult opponent Chigorin. They played
twice and Steinitz won both times, but the second match
was closed. It is interesting that Steinitz considered
Chigorin to be reopresentative of the "Old School",
while he himself represented the "Modern school", while
Stenitz was 14 years older than Chigorin. Steinitz meant
the Chigorin's romantic-Italian approach to chess, while
he himself was promoting his theory of the positional
chess. The reality was more complex. True, Chigorin
played gambits like no one else, he won late in his life
a thematic tournament devoted to classical gambits,
he also won a thematic match against Emanuel Lasker
himself.

On the other hand, Chigorin pioneered hypemodern ideas
way before the hypermodern movement was pronounced by
Reti and Tartakower.

Chigorin's chess philosophy was simple. He was against
any dogmas. Thus he was able to find to find exceptions
to Steinitz "laws". Chigorin believed, and in a sense
rightly so, that what ultimately counts is a concrete
analyses, that the final word belongs to the concrete
variations. He was not against general insights, he was
simply flexible. Chigorin's pragmatic-romantic (what a
combination! :-) presence was a forunate counter-balance
to the Steinitz's scientific euforia. And it is equally
important that Chigorin, like Zukertort earlier, kept
chess rich and excited. Sure, it is nice to follow
small advantages and fine end-games, but it is also nice
to have a variety and off the wall concepts and positions.

Any way you look at Michail Chigorin, he was a very
sympathetic, nice person, and that's how this great
player will be remembered.

***********

Siegbert Tarrasch used to claim to be the
"tournament world champion". Perhaps he was
during a span of a few years. And so were several
other players at one time or another. Tarrash was
also a strong theoretician. Tarrash Defense is still
popular today, it was a dangerous weapon in Spasski's
hands. He smoothed some of the Steinitz theory rough
spots. And still his theoretical contribution is not
equal in its importance to that of Philidor, Morphy,
Steinitz, Rubinstein or Tarrasch's nemezis Nimzovitz.

The uniqueness of the Tarrash role in chess somewhat
resembles that of Chigorin's: Tarrasch is called
the teacher of the German chessplayers. And of many
outside Germany too. For instance Tarrasch was Vidmar's
idol. Vidmar had an unbounded admiration for Tarrasch.
And then Vidmar did something unforgiveable (:-),
the youngster won against Tarrasch in a tournament.
How shocked was Vidmar, when Tarrasch reacted in a most
unpleasant way instead of simply congratulating the
promising player on his fine game. On the contrary,
Tarrasch asked Chigorin to get even with Vidmar, to
save his honor. It had to be very unpleasant to Vidmar,
but we, from the distance of years, are allowed to smile.

Tarrash was certainly a champion in the densely populated
field of great chess players making incredible excuses
for their loses.

He also should be remembered for his nostalgic:

chess, like music, like love, has the power
of making a man happy

something like this.

***************************

Best regards, Wlod

A chess historian at his best! You are definitely NOT the Sam Sloan as
others perceived you to be.

I for one, would like to read more of these.

--
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...

[...] Steinitz won both times, but the second match
was closed. [...]

"close", not "closed". Sorry for this and other typos,
and in general for torturing our universal Internet
English language.

Regards,

Wlod


***************************




my strict stepmother



english tongue -- wigglish
a snake a fish
the grammar-bird flying over
the boundless melody
of liquid phrases

the hungry snake
the slippery fish
the bird of steel
demands the grain the pearls the words

english -- the rarefied mountain air
english -- a rock on my chest




wh,
1992-04-06

(Liam Too) wrote in message . com...

A chess historian at his best!
You are definitely NOT the Sam Sloan as
others perceived you to be.

I for one, would like to read more of these.

Liam, I am happyu that my notes about the great
chess players appeal to you, thank you (and to Frank
once again).

I also feel like writing a disclaimer: I am not
an historian, not even an amateur one. We have
several serious chess historians on rgcm, and
I am taken by their knowledge, but I am not one
of them.

Also, my English is quite crude. I don't mean just
the sikmple (simple :-) typos plus actual orthographic
or grammatical errors. It's worse than that. My vocabulary
is limited, I am often frustrated by my inability to provide
just the perfect word, I have to substitute it with a less
precise one. The same goes for the choice of phrases
and gramatical constructions.

On the other hand Sam Sloan has a very good pen, he
is a true pro journalist, his English is very nice,
especially when he writes about the chess affairs.
You may be critical about his life story and his
life style (and on his bent for self-advertising :-)
but nevertheless he was one of the most significant
contributors to rgc+rgcm. Too bad that many humorless types
were not even able to enjoy his delicate sense of humor
and the mild manner of writing and sometimes suddenly shocking
his readers in that mild style--a nice combination.
No wonder that they were not able to match Sam literary wise.

Once again, rgcm is fortunate to have several participants
who have excellent pen but unfortunately I am not one
of them, I don't have this type of linguistic ability.

And still, I am truly glad that at least three readers
of my chess notes enjoyed them. I may try to continue.

In general, I feel that I am going away from the interactive
Internet. I was active on Internet quite a bit since 1989
but I finally I feel more and more distanced from it.
There is too much of anonymous Internet trash around.
And too many people don't care about sharing knowledge
and learning, they don't have much to say but they
still try to put others down using all kind of gimmicks.
The level of intellectual satisfaction from Internet
interactive exchanges on average goes down while the
noise level goes up, which to me is frustrating and tiring.
It is time for new Internet constructs, which will allow
for a better jewels to trash ratio. We already have the
required Internet technology. I am afraid that it must take
also some extra energy and time from the ones who care
(in addition to the new constructs--progress cannot happen
automatically, based on technology alone; it is a topic for
another thread).

Oh, well, forgive me these gloomy comments (with a touch
of a constructive promise :-),

Best regards,

Wlod


And once again, there are several

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
Also, my English is quite crude. I don't mean just
the sikmple (simple :-) typos plus actual orthographic
or grammatical errors. It's worse than that. My vocabulary
is limited, I am often frustrated by my inability to provide
just the perfect word, I have to substitute it with a less
precise one. The same goes for the choice of phrases
and gramatical constructions.

Your English is just fine. We are in the internet. In our haste to
post, we oftentimes don't care about orthographics, grammar, and
precision in the delivery of our messages.

Who cares? (Well, you have to ignore Nick and Troulsby, the internet
grammar police, of course)

In fact, you are better than I am and most of the posters here in
RGCM.


Oh, well, forgive me these gloomy comments (with a touch
of a constructive promise :-),

Best regards, Wlod

We'll all be looking forward to the "promise."

All the best, Lance

And still his theoretical contribution is not
equal in its importance to that of Philidor, Morphy,
Steinitz, Rubinstein or Tarrasch's nemezis Nimzovitz.

I would agree except for Rubinstein. I think Rubinstein's
contribution to theory was up there with Tarrasch. I think he just
wasn't as popular as Tarrasch. Just my opinion.

EZoto

EZoto wrote in message ws.com...
comments on my statemet:

And still his theoretical contribution is not
equal in its importance to that of Philidor, Morphy,
Steinitz, Rubinstein or Tarrasch's nemezis Nimzovitz.

EZoto:

I would agree except for Rubinstein. I think Rubinstein's
contribution to theory was up there with Tarrasch. I think he just
wasn't as popular as Tarrasch. Just my opinion.

EZoto

Was my sentence unclear? I meant that
Rubinstein's theoretical contribution
was MORE important than Tarrash's contribution.
(And the same goes for Philidor, Morphy, Steinitz,
and Nimzovitz).

Regards,

Wlod

Was my sentence unclear? I meant that
Rubinstein's theoretical contribution
was MORE important than Tarrash's contribution.
(And the same goes for Philidor, Morphy, Steinitz,
and Nimzovitz).

Regards,

Wlod

My apologies. This is my second misread today.

EZoto

Hello,

here is the result after nearly 100 votes:
Kasparov, Fischer and Aljechin lead with 15 votes, then Tal with 14.
Always tactically players!!

Where are the fans of the strategically players like Karpov or Capablanca ;-)??

Kind regards
) Frank