< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Nov-03-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Everett: <AnalyzeThis> <Bronkenstein> Don't you think the inertia and momentum is more powerful in matches compared to tournaments? I think the psychological pressure is much tougher, and because of this it has created some warped results.> OFC, Bobby`s whitewashings being extreme examples =)|
<Euwe has always struck me as a proper gentleman, and it's likely he did not mean any offense toward Alekhine> Absolutely , I didn`t pick the right expression it seems.
My point was that Alekhine wasn`t able only to memorise (<opening knowledge>) , but was by far the most creative and versatile opening (speaking only about openings here) player (including OTB improvisation) of his time , he could go `technical` or play Frankenstein-Dracula (Alekhine vs Euwe, 1935) , something that `precise` Euwe wasn`t doing too often. In endgames and technical play he didn`t (at least) surpass his opponent , but he won the title back by being more able to vary and adjust - against Capa he did something reversed to what he did to Euwe.
|Nov-03-11|| ||bronkenstein: Another excellent example of AAs very modern `refute me if you can` concept , Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 , <6.Nf3?!?>(white is worse-to-lost with precise play) and the reigning WC is miniaturised. Such moves would never even enter Capas or Euwe`s mind.|
|Nov-03-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <bronkenstein> I certainly can't refute you as I agree with you regarding Alekhine's imaginative opening novelties and follow up OTB creative improvisation.(",) Nice games that typify AAA's approach.|
Alekhine by his own admission studied chess 8 hours a day, thoroughly prepping his openings with effective novelties that got him the kind of middlegames where his creative talent could shine, and analyzing all of his opponent's games for weaknesses to exploit and his own games for shortcomings he needed to improve on. This kind of Alekhine chess policy seems to me the real beginnings of the Soviet school of chess, which the later Soviet masters took up.
IMO if Alekhine never left the USSR (assuming he would not get executed as he almost was and his brother was), he would have been supplied with a state salary and state-sponsored seconds and trainers; and he would have reached further heights in the 1930s. He was the last Russian Empire champion (with Nimzovich) and the first Soviet champion; and he would have definitely stamped his class on the pre-WW2 Soviet championships, raising them and their participants to a higher level. If the Soviet masters of the 1940s and 1950s had AAA to personally practice with and learn from in their youth, they probably would have been all the more stronger.
|Nov-03-11|| ||Everett: <If the Soviet masters of the 1940s and 1950s had AAA to personally practice with and learn from in their youth, they probably would have been all the more stronger.> |
This is the tragedy of early retirements (Morphy, Fischer, amongst the champs, others brilliant but perhaps not at the top). Each great player has a certain special quality of seeing the game, and by leaving early in their careers, chess-evolution in a sense stops and must be rekindled. Botvinnik's absence and rationing of competition after becoming champ also takes away from chess as a whole.
The loss of matches like Lasker-Rubinstein, Capablanca-Alekhine II, FIscher-Karpov, and all the possible match-ups Botvinnik interfered with by staying champ after '57 (any combination of Bronstein, Smyslov, Keres, Tal, Petrosian) are significant and sad.
I'm not criticizing their decisions (at the moment ;-) Just pointing out that something stops when those at the top don't give the next generation a chance to learn from them through preparation and competition.
|Nov-03-11|| ||bronkenstein: <visayan> , I am explaining too extensively , so it might look like I am countering something . Shortly , Euwe felt very well where the danger is coming from, just he formulated it bit clumsy (right but too narrow IMO ) in the mentioned quote. |
Speaking of early USSR masters , they had Alekhine`s wave same as USA had Fischer`s , and (especially late 30s and on) Botvinnik wasn`t much weaker than AAA , maybe less brilliant and less strong ie experienced in matches , anyway his youth and iron will compensated it in tournaments , so they didn`t lose that much IMO.
@ <Everet> Nice chain of fantasies. Now , if Tal was healthy , if Fischer was less looney ... I suggest CG to , besides the played matches , make phantom-pages for unplayed ones , so we can discuss what would happen in Rubinstein-Lasker 1910 , How-many-to-zero would Kaspy crush Shirov etc =)
PS speaking of AAAs possible opinion on helping USSR masters(or anyone else in fact) , he didn`t care too much about anything else but himself.
Very illustrative quote from aforementioned V.Vukovic`s book , namely back in 30s he had conversation with Alekhine , and @ some point they touched theme of god and eternal life/mortality. Our friend AAA had very simple argument : `I can`t imagine that something like <ME> can simply dissapear?`
PPS I am paraphrasing by memory , but with a word or two maybe slightly different , the very essence of the quote is exactly captured here.
|Nov-03-11|| ||Everett: <`I can`t imagine that something like <ME> can simply dissapear?`>|
Am I reading this right, that his tremendous ego asserts because of his greatness his soul must live on somehow? Interesting... But it does not mean he wouldnt be willing to teach and pass on his knowledge.
Actually, besides Smyslov's faith and alien visitation, I don't know much about the chess greats (non)belief of the afterlife.
|Nov-04-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Am I reading this right, that his tremendous ego asserts because of his greatness his soul must live on somehow?> Pretty much the way I understood it.|
Chess masters throughout history had much stronger tendencies to be indifferent or even leave their religious studies and go playing chess than the opposite (Steinitz , Rubinstein) .
Fischer might be the lone example of getting back to religion ( wait , was Reshevsky with him in that sect...? Some of the episodes from his Sousse interzonal had something to do with them refusing to play on saturday , or at least during it`s daylight).
|Jun-18-12|| ||solskytz: I wonder what is the meaning of "Best of 30 games, and 6 wins"|
Does it means that if after 30 games, for example, Euwe would be up a point but with 5 to 4 wins (rather than 9 to 8 as happened actually), then they would have to play on, until one or the other of them collected his 6th win?
We would then have another Alekhine-Capablanca, or Karpov-Kasparov 1984 (which, just maybe, isn't such a bad idea after all, even if it costs a little more in health and money...)
|Jun-18-12|| ||tjoff: <wait , was Reshevsky with him in that sect...? Some of the episodes from his Sousse interzonal had something to do with them refusing to play on saturday , or at least during it`s daylight>|
No, Reshevsky was not in Fischers sect.
As an orthodox jew, Reshevsky did not play on the jewish sabbath (saturday).
Any biographic text on Reshevsky will tell you that much, so no need to speculate.
|Jun-18-12|| ||RookFile: Best of 30 games and 6 wins means that you can win the match either by being ahead after 30 games or by getting your 6th win of the match, whichever comes first. As soon as either one of these things happens, the match ends.|
|Jun-18-12|| ||thomastonk: <Rookfile: Best of 30 games and 6 wins means that you can win the match either by being ahead after 30 games or by getting your 6th win of the match, whichever comes first.> Alekhine scored his 6th win in the 16th match game.|
|Jun-18-12|| ||AVRO38: <RookFile:Best of 30 games and 6 wins means that you can win the match either by being ahead after 30 games or by getting your 6th win of the match, whichever comes first. As soon as either one of these things happens, the match ends.>|
Wrong! All of Alekhine's title defenses and the 1937 return match required the winner to score 6 wins AND 15.5 points.
|Jun-18-12|| ||RookFile: Well, in theory somebody could score 1 win and have 29 draws, and get 15.5 points. Is there documentation available that says the match would continue until the guy got 5 more wins?|
|Jun-18-12|| ||solskytz: Basically my question :-]|
|Jun-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: <I wonder what is the meaning of "Best of 30 games, and 6 wins"> |
It means that BOTH of those conditions are required. So, for example, if after 30 games, you're ahead +4-3=23, the match continues until somebody has 6 wins. (And it might not be the guy who had the +4). If someone scores the 6 Wins before Game 30, then there's no difference between a straight Best of 30 format.
Conversely, Best of 30 <OR> 6 Wins would mean that you can win one way or the other, but are not required to fulfill both conditions. So, if you won the first 6 games, the match would be over, without your needing to score the 15.5 points.
|Jun-18-12|| ||RookFile: I'm sure AVRO is right, because Alekhine would have been declared the winner in this match after game 16 if it was first to 6 wins.|
|Jun-19-12|| ||DWINS: In his book, "Extreme chess", Purdy says the following about the terms of the match.|
"The match was to consist of 30 games, but the winner's score had to include at least six wins.
The set number of games is an unfortunate condition that was imposed in order to give each city a certain portion of the match, in consideration of its contribution to the expenses.
The effect is that as soon as one player has won 6 games every draw brings him nearer victory. His opponent is handicapped by having to avoid drawish lines, and the final score is not necessarily an indication of the true relative strengths of the contestants."
He doesn't say what would have happened if neither player had scored 6 wins after thirty games.
|Jun-19-12|| ||thomastonk: Since "facts" in chess history often turn out to be wrong, I always like to see a contemporary source for validation.|
In the newspaper "De Indische Courant" dated September 30, 1935 (and hence only a few days before the match begun) Euwe explained the rules almost the same way as <Petrosianic> did above (only the scores in the example slightly differs).
|Jun-20-12|| ||AVRO38: <Petrosianic:It's not just chess, I've never seen a color shot of Churchhill, Stalin or FDR. Governments that spend 400 bucks for a hammer couldn't have popped for a roll of color film now and then?>|
That's because you're a cultural pygmy. There are tons of old color photographs available on the internet.
Ever hear of Wikipedia?
|Aug-06-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Euwe: "Of course it was stupid for me to give him a draw in the last game, since I had a won game. But the draw was enough for me to win the World Title.">|
Alas, poor Schlechter!
|Aug-07-12|| ||RookFile: That's exactly right. You win the championship first and ask questions later.|
|Aug-07-12|| ||perfidious: Here we see a future champion display the same pragmatic approach in a de facto title match (Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1974).|
|Nov-16-12|| ||pericles of athens: anybody else notice that alekhine won
3 french winawers here against euwe - 41 moves each? interesting coincidence, if you can call it that.
|Nov-17-12|| ||thomastonk: This picture http://www.pic-upload.de/view-16935... was taken on October 18th, 1935, i.e. the day after the seventh game. Alekhine and Lasker are playing bridge in the bridge club "Bagatelle", while Maroczy and Tartakower are watching. The sitting woman is Mrs Alekhine. Can anybody else be identified?|
|Nov-18-12|| ||thomastonk: <pericles of athens: 41 moves each> Resigning a game after time control is not unusual. Game 3 and 7 were adjourned and not continued, game 9 was resigned immediately. Alekhine won another game at move 41, and Euwe won three games at move 41. All these games were won by White. And then there are two Black wins by Euwe at move 40. So, more than the half of all decisive games ended just after the time control.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·