|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-28-22
 | | Sally Simpson: Digital books...That's no good.
You need to set up the board and make the moves that were played in 3d. That way you are there experiencing the moment, feeling pressure...seeing what they saw. You cannot swot a fly with a digital book or tear out a page to roll up a cigarette.
(The thin pages in Ruben Fine's book on endgames makes smashing roll up paper.) |
|
Dec-28-22
 | | HeMateMe: Well, how many of us have unfinished chess books on the shelves? It's much quicker to work through an e-book on screen, especially the supporting notes. I'm 'old school' like you, but a realist. Digital chess is the future. |
|
Dec-28-22
| | Sally Simpson: It's not old school HeMateMe, it's the correct way, the only way. What can you hope to sink in watching a wee graphic dancing around on a board the same size as a postage stamp.
Chess is all about stored pattern recognition. You are asking your brain to spot a face in the crowd that it has not seen. Nor can you add things (scribble notes) in a digital book. Recently here I've been adding comments to a pile of 1978 games because in 1978 I asked for and was given as a Christmas present Informator 25. (my nerdiness has no known barrier - thanks Mum.) I've been going over it and the things I scribbled all over it back in 1978/1979. see; https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... Nearly every page is like that.
We are disagreeing. What happens next is we have a massive fall out and follow each other from page to page hurling insults at each other (see any post by Perfidious and Fred the Bear). I do not want this to happen. (us nerds have to stick together.) So please just agree with me. (even if you don't...but secretly I know you do.) For Christmas 1979 I asked for and got Informator 27. I never did get Informator 26 but as I now have all the Informators (1 to 99) on disc ....hang on that is digital...ignore this bit. |
|
Dec-28-22
 | | Fusilli: <Sally Simpson> Indeed! Kaidanov, for example, advises to play Solitaire Chess (or Guess the Move, or whatever you want to call it) on a chess board, not online. In his book series (masterpiece!) Yusupov tells you to set the board and pieces and write down all the variations you see, down to the most trivial ones. I have yet to find a top trainer that advises you to study on your computer screen. I'm lazy, though, and succumb to the on-screen temptation on a regular basis. That is, when I study, which is often derailed by frivolous online blitz. But that's more about addiction than chess. Anyway, you are right. So, <He mate me> and I agree with you. That's two supporters. On a side note, I chased Informators too when I was young, but aren't they flawed versions of computer analysis, after all? I learn the most when I read words from a top trainer explaining the position to me, but Informator analyses was about variations, if memory serves me well. This said, Yusupov, man. Yusupov. Best coach of all time. Who is that, you ask? This guy: Artur Yusupov If you are on Instagram, here's my amateur portrait of Yusupov: https://www.instagram.com/p/ByraGed... (You'll have to request to follow me. It's a private account.) |
|
Dec-28-22
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Fusilli,
Well getting board and pieces out seemed to work just fine for a couple of 100 years. These days of course the top lot need all the help they can get but I have had a total regression and given up on the lot of them and now I only look at and play over old games. <but aren't they [informators]flawed versions of computer analysis? > No. 1978 was all human suggestions so you had to check them and sometimes found they were dodgy. Then you spend ages digging out why you think so. My suggestion on move 23 in R Byrne vs Spassky, 1978 is not mentioned by Cabrillo (who noted it up) but back in 1978 it must have jumped out at me. I think computer junk crept in round about 1990 (with those doing the analysis sometimes not admitting they were using a computer.) I was super keen in 1978-1981. Informators gave you all the games that magazines missed. I was not too interested in TN's just the ideas, patterns, combo's etc... You pick up opening theory along the way. I only studied thoroughly No.25. I started by picking games at random that had a diagram. That is how I hit upon W Schmidt vs A Kuligowski, 1978 (Fantastic! it was voted the best game in No.25 - it's not even made GOTD here.) And I used that Bh3 idea in G Chandler vs R Austin, 1980 (that has not made GOTD either...huh!) |
|
Dec-29-22
| | Fusilli: <Sally Simpson> <<but aren't they [informators]flawed versions of computer analysis? >No. 1978 was all human suggestions so you had to check them and sometimes found they were dodgy. Then you spend ages digging out why you think so.> I don't think you understood me. I know they were human annotators! (I was around too, I am not young.) My point is that the comments on games were variations and variations, just like computers provide today, only that computer variations today are better than human-produced variations. My comment was ultimately not about the inevitably flawed quality of those Informator analyses in comparison to today's engines... which is just to say that they were analyses at the 2500-level rather than 3000-level, a trivial "flaw," really. Besides, flaws are human, and I am fine with them. My point was that the Informators had to communicate everything in symbols (like engines do today) and could not provide deep communication about a position, like a narrative can. They could give you a symbol followed by "f7", so that the annotator could tell you f7 was a weakness, but they could not discuss the various plans to get to f7 (or to defend f7) other than by providing variations. Then the why (or why nots) of some moves and plans could not be communicated, as they can in a standard book. That said, again, I chased the Informators too. In the period you mentioned, I devoured the games from Riga Interzonal (1979) and Rio de Janeiro Interzonal (1979). Speaking of old games, I just commented at length on the endgame in
Najdorf vs K Opocensky, 1946. Worth taking a look in your endgame study day, if you want to join me. |
|
Dec-29-22
 | | saffuna: I also much prefer written analysis to wordless variations. But something is better than nothing. This may be related. I always use a screen these days, not a board and pieces. But I find I have a better feel for positions I had to set up than positions I just have to look at. Somehow setting up the position helps me. |
|
Dec-30-22
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Fusilli,
We got mixed up somewhere. If you see my picture of the inside of Inf. No.25 you will see the first thing I did was put the other variations in a different colour so I could concentrate just on what was played. Then if I was really into the game I would look at what what was suggested. One of my favourite books is/was 'The Golden Treasury of Chess' A wonderful collection of games with no notes. (here is a pdf example) https://archive.org/details/thegold... If there was anything you were not sure of or wanted to know or if you spotted what you think was a good shot then you had to dig it out for yourself. Just the bare moves and you had to unravel it. It was like a CSI investigation. A blunder had been made (a crime committed) you had to find it. Could the suspect have got themselves back into the game due to slack play. Was there a quicker way to wrap it up...
You were on your own with no notes or analysis to guide or misguide you. Of course you can lead yourself up a garden path and on a flight of fancy (that often happened) but the important thing (IMO) is you are doing it and not just nodding and agreeing with with every word you read. (It's also good fun chasing rainbows in games. sometimes you hit a pot of gold.) |
|
Dec-30-22
| | Fusilli: <Sally Simpson> I surely agree with using my own head when going through a game. But for clarification: Are you saying that you never look at the input of grandmasters, be in the form of variations (not so interesting to me) or explanatory narrative (again to me, more interesting and instructive)? |
|
Dec-30-22
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Fusikki,
Just the Informator squiggles and variations I ignored. Going through note less games looking for things is good fun. John Nunn wrote that this the best way to treat an informator as it also builds up your sense of danger, alerts your hidden eye that something is on. I enjoying it this way do more than than being told what was just missed and what is about to happen. |
|
Jan-06-23
| | HeMateMe: Terrific Bobby Fischer photo
<https://www.bing.com/images/search?...> I didn't know that Jan Timman had done a book on Fischer. Nice photo here, the Super Ks with Timman near one of the canals of Amsterdam. This must be from the annual Hoogovens event, or whatever they were calling it back then. <https://www.bing.com/images/search?...> i picked up the Timman book today on the five KK matches, <The Longest Game> <https://www.bing.com/images/search?...> |
|
| Jan-06-23 | | Retireborn: The site dates the photo as April 1987, but I don't think Kasparov played Amsterdam that year. Perhaps it's actually 1988 (the Optiebeurs tournament.) One wonders who the fourth man just out of shot is! |
|
| Jan-06-23 | | stone free or die: <Retireborn: The site dates the photo as April 1987, but I don't think Kasparov played Amsterdam that year. Perhaps it's actually 1988 (the Optiebeurs tournament.)> This prompted me to do a little more research into it. Using <HMM>'s bing page, I found an attribution to the Dutch National Archive. That's a tremendous resource, and an issuing authority for source and attributions. So, it appears it was indeed dated 1987-04-28, on the occasion of a <GM Association> press conference. http://hdl.handle.net/10648/ad5fa13... https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en/... <One wonders who the fourth man just out of shot is!> My best guess, conforming to what evidence I could gather, is that it's GM Van der Wiel (which kinda makes sense socially too): https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en/... Note the tie and lightly-striped white shirt and longish hair. (I widened the search to look for all photos in the archive taken on 1987-04-28 to find that. It appears that Kasparov also gave a simul that day: https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en/...) |
|
| Jan-06-23 | | stone free or die: FWIW- Kasparov scratching and scowling on that bridge shot reminds me of the promoter Bill Graham for some reason. . |
|
| Jan-06-23 | | Retireborn: Thanks. I did wonder if it was Wiel, as he was the fourth player in the 1988 tournament. Evidently Optiebeurs sponsored this 1987 simul as well. I think that might be Ehlvest next to Timman in the second photo. |
|
Jan-06-23
| | HeMateMe: No bodyguards, for the Russian chess elite? |
|
| Jan-07-23 | | stone free or die: There's at least one game from the simul on <CG>: Kasparov vs T Krabbe, 1987 . |
|
Jan-08-23
| | Fusilli: <HMM> <stone> Nice photos and great detective work, <stone>. <I think that might be Ehlvest next to Timman in the second photo.> I think <stone> proved it's Van der Wiel. Same tie and shirt as in the photo with Karpov, as he noted. And the horrific bulky hair over the ear, a reminder that it is a 1980s photo! The simul photo is fantastic. A young and smiling Kaspy, surrounded by smiling folks too. No women, unfortunately. Not many of them in the chess world in the 1980s, of course. |
|
Jan-08-23
 | | moronovich: I can confirm it is Van der Wiel. We shared some fine moments back i 1983. |
|
| Jan-08-23 | | Retireborn: <Fusili> I mean the photo where they are all sitting down. |
|
Jan-08-23
| | Fusilli: <Retireborn: <Fusili> I mean the photo where they are all sitting down.> Oh, I apologize, I didn't even see that photo.
I looked at it now. Ehlvest turned 25 in late 1987, and that man looks older to me. I tried to find a photo of Ehlvest from back then but almost all I find online is more recent. The third photo here is Ehlvest in 1992:
https://nezhmet.wordpress.com/2007/... Apparently, he hadn't adopted his signature stache yet! I don't think he is the same person as in the 1987 photo. |
|
| Jan-08-23 | | stone free or die: RE: <Kasparov Apr-28-1987 simul> https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en/... That's almost certainly Dick Dolman at the board Kasporov is standing at. (Dolman's only game on <CG> is another simul, four years later, against Anand). <Dirk "Dick" Dolman (2 July 1935 – 23 January 2019) was a Dutch politician. In 1970, he became a member of the House of Representatives as a member of the Labour Party (PvdA). From 17 July 1979 to 14 September 1989 he was the Speaker of the House of Representatives.> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_...
I tried to find <v.d. Knaap> on <CG>, but no luck. * * * * *
This article may be relevant to the appearance of Karpov and Kasparov in Amsterdam later that month (the nearby SWIFT tn): https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=... |
|
Jan-23-23
| | Fusilli: <stone> <That's almost certainly Dick Dolman> Good catch. I think the "almost" can be dropped after seeing this photo: <https://nos.nl/artikel/2269423-oud-...> A bit more obvious than the photo in the Wikipedia page. |
|
| Jan-16-24 | | Olavi: In the ongoing Wijk aan Zee tournament Giri plays for the 15th consecutive time (the last 13 in the top group) I believe. It occurred to me that Timman, the undisputed Dutch number one, played only once between 1982 and 1995, in 1985 when he won. In 1986 and 1994 the candidates were in the way, but surely he was invited most if not every year?! Before and after he was a regular. |
|
Jan-16-24
 | | harrylime: I thought he'd gone lol lol
His book on Fischer is amazing. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
