|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-12-04
 | | kevin86: I referred to chess as an art,above. I pointed out that in most other arts,money takes a back seat. If SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER has any credibility,the players at Marshall Chess Club seem to be as emotionally on edge as stockbrokers down the street, who make millions-instead of thousands. Chess is meant to be won-like boxing;but,isn't it true that boxers can be artistic as well? They even,regrettably be as clowns. If Mike Tyson was just a mauler in the ring,would we even remember him? For good (or mostly bad) boxing has become a circus. |
|
| Jul-12-04 | | iron maiden: <acirce> If you had admitted the artistic approach in your first post, and then expressed your preference for the other approach, then I'd have no problem. You just stated your opinion as if it was a fact. If you do regard the sporting approach as an opinion and not as fact then I apologize, but that post did not exactly make that clear. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | acirce: Usually when you say something of a debatable kind it's understood that it is not meant as some kind of rock-hard, objective, totally indisputable FACT but as an opinion. I don't know why you should have to make that explicit each and every time. |
|
Jul-13-04
 | | IMlday: I think the point is that *playing chess as if it were an art* produces comparable results to treating it as a science. Chess is just the most cerebral, sublimated form of 'martial arts'; a sort of kung fu for paraplegics. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | iron maiden: <it is not meant as some kind of rock-hard, objective, totally indisputable FACT but as an opinion> Okay, but whether you viewed it as an opinion or a fact, I was debating it. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | acirce: <iron maiden> I agreed with everything you said. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | iron maiden: <acirce> Pardon me for being stupid, but what's that supposed to mean? |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | acirce: I agreed with the contents of every post you made in this discussion, I just felt that it in no way contradicted my view on chess as a non-art. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | iron maiden: I see.
Anyway...great play by Suttles, huh? Even though I don't like seeing Yaz beaten under any circumstances. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | acirce: That I don't know :-) |
|
| Oct-10-04 | | JohnnyManitoba: Im giving it to Iron Maiden, even though I'm not a fan of the music, chess is *my* own favoured art form:) |
|
Jun-05-05
 | | Gypsy: <IMlday:...Chess is just the most cerebral, sublimated form of 'martial arts'; a sort of kung fu for paraplegics.> A great quote of the Day! |
|
| Sep-26-05 | | lentil: 1) shake box. 2) drop pieces onto board from height of at least 8 inches. 3) stand pieces on their bases. voila: a position from a suttles game! |
|
| Sep-26-05 | | PARACONT1: Wasn't that how someone described Steinitz's positions? |
|
| Sep-26-05 | | atripodi: Andrew Soltis said (and I paraphrase) that Suttles was either a positial genius or a positional novice and a great tactician. Also, doesn't it seem like he seldom played 1.g3 against his really strong opponents (Fischer, Seirawan, Larsen, Timman? Is there any practical reason for this? |
|
| Sep-26-05 | | RookFile: Paracont1 asks a good question. Let's look at a fairly typical example
of Steinitz defending the Evans gambit, against Chigorin. Steinitz
had his ideas, but they didn't tend to work well in open games when he was playing defense. Chigorin would
routinely slap him around, with Steinitz's pieces ending up in absurd positions, such as this game: Chigorin vs Steinitz, 1889 |
|
Sep-26-05
| | IMlday: For the last few moves before time control, the players had less than 5-seconds per move while the position remained extraordinarily complex. It was dramatic to watch, especially as Suttles hadn't played over the board since 1975. He and Yaz got on fabulously. They first met as a mismatch in Rd. 1 at the Chicago, 1973 U.S. Open. Yaz's whole style could be understood as Suttles-calmed-down in a way. |
|
| Oct-26-05 | | lentil: <Paracont1>,<RookFile> I lifted the description Tarrasch(?), who was describing Nimzovich. |
|
| Mar-30-06 | | FrancisGrasso: Rather than 35 f4?, Qa1!! does
look remarkably crisp at move 35
for Yaz. |
|
| May-27-08 | | znprdx: A fascinating thread: Chess, the game, art, sport...which began with: <acirce: Chess is a game, not an art. It's about beating your opponent, not writing a poem......> Before I add my reflections I'd like to clarify a popularily held misconception as stated by <gabrielr: ...... the point that a game, by definition, is designed--as played--to produce a winner and a loser.> Here you are defining only one type of game: the 'zero-sum' game. As for 'beating one's opponent there is nothing less satisfying than a one-sided victory - and that goes for all sports. The 'art' of Chess, its 'poetry' can be found in its natural 'synergy', in other words the flux of the unfolding position. I understand clearly why <IM (Lawrence)Day> selected this as his favorite game: it is a full-fledged symphony ...the pieces are the orchestra - yet what the conductor (Duncan) coaxes from them is extraordinary... If Chess were not an art would it have its rich historical legacy? There are positions which are so profound that people still discuss them after a century... Did you ever read a book "My 60 Memorable Games...of Backgammon, or Poker, or Risk or Scrabble? And of course the indisputable artisty in Chess has long been found in problem composition. I've always preferred the tennis analogy to the more obvious boxing comparison. The player with the serve is White ...Black works to Break the service...then it is a back and forth struggle to maintain or wrest the initiative. I've always seen Chess to suffer from a fundamental flaw...that Black cannot respond to a White Check with a check...which in the age of the computer could then be extrapolated to two streams ..... Another cute idea might be to allow Black the option of moving 2 pawns one square on the first move...this would revolutionize opening theory However where Chess truly falls short is the continued acceptance of draws by agreement. Yet ironically perhaps this is the final proof that Chess IS an art since we do not which to tarnish a quiet landscape with the over-zealous brushstokes of human error :) |
|
| Mar-29-09 | | lentil: if chess is music, this game is jazz. |
|
| Mar-29-09 | | Hugh the Drover: There is a myriad of art or science to exercise or prosecute in this wide-open, offense-oriented game. The pawns are cleared and power hitters are scattered across the board, mostly on the king-side. Black's Queen resembles quarterback Warren Moon, ready to throw a decisive bomb. With the attempted pins and counter-pins, you can trip over your own (or someone else's) feet. Bowling comes to mind. If you're wondering how something can be both an art and science at the same time, consider that universities have "Deans of Arts and Sciences" (in one office). |
|
| Nov-16-10 | | sevenseaman: 39. Re2 gives white a much better chance of a fight. |
|
| Jan-18-11 | | meppi: very good game, one of my favorites, especially good is the black knight maneuvering to dangerous squares |
|
| Jun-22-13 | | Garech: Great chess!!
-Garech |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
