Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 14th 07, 03:49 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default game annotations

Okay, so now I am reading the September 2007 issue of Chess Life...

First off, I notice that GM Andy Soltis tries to prove that a couple
of grandmasters do not cheat by showing some positions where
they played moves which don't match those selected by computers.
This is a really dumb approach, since a player could cheat and
be considered a cheater even if he only cheats let's say 1% of the
time.
Regardless, he tossed out an insult of Russian chess players,
who he claims have a decided tendency to cheat. My experience
has been that nationality is irrelevant; Americans cheat, Russians
cheat, even Martians may cheat; it is simply a matter of the
individual person's character.
On one thing I will agree with the Soltis Stupidity: here in
America,
it is *easier* for a couple of Russians (or Chinese, or Martians) to
discuss their game between themselves, because nobody will know
what the heck they are saying *in Russian*. At least when
Americans cheat right out in the open, you can listen in and get
an idea of precisely how you are about to lose; this has the
advantage of affording one the victim an opportunity to resign.


The next article, by Bruce Pandolfini, has former world champion
Gary Kasparov shifting his stance by supposedly not bashing his
old rival Anatoly Karpov in every way imaginable. Now I don't want
to sound like I'm against reform, but I simply can't applaud this
kind of inconsistency; it shows a general lack of integrity in the
reckless launching of attacks which only years later are admitted
to have been overdone, like a thirty-minute boiled egg.


Next we come to the main event, an article on Bobby Fischer's
games by GM Susan Polgar and Paul Truong.
I already covered the first game, in which Fischer apologists
still bleat that his Bxh2 was not really a blunder.
The next game is the famous Benoni, in which GM Fischer
played ...Nh5, allowing his pawns to get messed up. We are
quickly shown the Bxh5, gxh5 exchange, and the repair work
GM Spassky did (gratis!) afterward, then comes a comment on
what a "wonderful" game it was, yet we are not shown the
game and are left in the dark as to how it was ever won. What
a waste of space.

The next game has GM Spassky as White again (hey, does
he only lose as White or something?); he has the Bishop pair
and a protected passed pawn, but these are summarily
dismissed and we are told that Black (i.e. GM Fischer) is
better. Well, okay, Black has an extra (doubled) pawn on
the Kingside and great piece play, but you have to wonder
how this would be described if the players switched sides.

Next game has GM Fischer as White for a change. He
plays a Queen's Gambit (what, not 1.e4?) and chooses a
line which is very, very safe for him. But soon GM Spassky's
moves are being picked on; we are told that 14. ...Qb7 was
the way to go, but my computer shows that Black is doing
just fine in GM Spassky's line -- *dead equality* in fact. A
clue appears in a sub-line where White is, typically, given
two moves in-a-row to yield an advantage! I somehow doubt
that there is any chance of a Fischer opponent getting any
analytical justice in this world; there is simply too much
pro-Fischer bias floating around.

In these games -- presumably the ones which he ultimately
won -- GM Fischer is shown as very, very good at finding
moves which generate "practical winning chances". In fact
I am tired of looking at my own games and other games in
which weak players combined with fast time controls and
sub-par playing conditions produce downright lousy chess.
At least in *some* of the world championship games we
get to see chess of a very high caliber. But I long for the
cold objectivity of a GM Botvinnik in the annotations, and
the only way to get that seems to be using Fritz to weed
out the glaring bias of these Chess Life people.


-- help bot

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 14th 07, 05:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,365
Default game annotations

On Sep 14, 7:49 am, help bot wrote:
Okay, so now I am reading the September 2007 issue of Chess Life...

First off, I notice that GM Andy Soltis tries to prove that a couple
of grandmasters do not cheat by showing some positions where
they played moves which don't match those selected by computers.
This is a really dumb approach, since a player could cheat and
be considered a cheater even if he only cheats let's say 1% of the
time.
Regardless, he tossed out an insult of Russian chess players,
who he claims have a decided tendency to cheat. My experience
has been that nationality is irrelevant; Americans cheat, Russians
cheat, even Martians may cheat; it is simply a matter of the
individual person's character.
On one thing I will agree with the Soltis Stupidity: here in
America,
it is *easier* for a couple of Russians (or Chinese, or Martians) to
discuss their game between themselves, because nobody will know
what the heck they are saying *in Russian*. At least when
Americans cheat right out in the open, you can listen in and get
an idea of precisely how you are about to lose; this has the
advantage of affording one the victim an opportunity to resign.

The next article, by Bruce Pandolfini, has former world champion
Gary Kasparov shifting his stance by supposedly not bashing his
old rival Anatoly Karpov in every way imaginable. Now I don't want
to sound like I'm against reform, but I simply can't applaud this
kind of inconsistency; it shows a general lack of integrity in the
reckless launching of attacks which only years later are admitted
to have been overdone, like a thirty-minute boiled egg.

Next we come to the main event, an article on Bobby Fischer's
games by GM Susan Polgar and Paul Truong.
I already covered the first game, in which Fischer apologists
still bleat that his Bxh2 was not really a blunder.
The next game is the famous Benoni, in which GM Fischer
played ...Nh5, allowing his pawns to get messed up. We are
quickly shown the Bxh5, gxh5 exchange, and the repair work
GM Spassky did (gratis!) afterward, then comes a comment on
what a "wonderful" game it was, yet we are not shown the
game and are left in the dark as to how it was ever won. What
a waste of space.

The next game has GM Spassky as White again (hey, does
he only lose as White or something?); he has the Bishop pair
and a protected passed pawn, but these are summarily
dismissed and we are told that Black (i.e. GM Fischer) is
better. Well, okay, Black has an extra (doubled) pawn on
the Kingside and great piece play, but you have to wonder
how this would be described if the players switched sides.

Next game has GM Fischer as White for a change. He
plays a Queen's Gambit (what, not 1.e4?) and chooses a
line which is very, very safe for him. But soon GM Spassky's
moves are being picked on; we are told that 14. ...Qb7 was
the way to go, but my computer shows that Black is doing
just fine in GM Spassky's line -- *dead equality* in fact. A
clue appears in a sub-line where White is, typically, given
two moves in-a-row to yield an advantage! I somehow doubt
that there is any chance of a Fischer opponent getting any
analytical justice in this world; there is simply too much
pro-Fischer bias floating around.

In these games -- presumably the ones which he ultimately
won -- GM Fischer is shown as very, very good at finding
moves which generate "practical winning chances". In fact
I am tired of looking at my own games and other games in
which weak players combined with fast time controls and
sub-par playing conditions produce downright lousy chess.
At least in *some* of the world championship games we
get to see chess of a very high caliber. But I long for the
cold objectivity of a GM Botvinnik in the annotations, and
the only way to get that seems to be using Fritz to weed
out the glaring bias of these Chess Life people.

-- help bot


GetClub Chess again playing very good. I think now you will get good
Challenge. Its rating increased by +50.

Beginner: 1750
Easy: 1850
Normal: 1950
Master: 2050

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
game annotations help bot rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 7 September 12th 07 04:41 PM
game annotations help bot rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 September 3rd 07 08:58 AM
Should Sam Sloan be kicked out of the USCF? [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 26 July 16th 06 10:47 PM
Should Sam Sloan be kicked out of the USCF? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 24 July 16th 06 10:47 PM
Top Ten Reasons to Play! Tim Hanke rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 19 April 19th 06 08:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017