|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 59 OF 65 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-14-15 | | wrap99: <Eggman> I think Karpov also says that he learned chess from watching. Is it more amazing to be a world champ or simply learn the moves of chess just by watching? I think it is pretty plausible that a GM could learn the moves by observation and see no reason for a world champ or near-world champ to make up a fairly prosaic-sounding accomplishment as this. |
|
Aug-14-15
 | | keypusher: <Aug-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member MissScarlett: Truer friends of the fight against subversion know that committee is properly referred to as <HUAC>, sans article.>...but only when the acronym is used. |
|
| Aug-14-15 | | thegoodanarchist: <wrapp99>
I don't think many folks who have deep knowledge of chess history would argue that Reshevsky was as great as Karpov. Close, maybe, but no cigar (just a pipe) :) |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | wrap99: <thegoodanarchist> Where am I saying that SR is as great a player as Karpov? The post is suggesting that *any* kid who could eventually become a GM picking up rules by observation is not surprising. |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | RookFile: It's too bad they didn't have chess 960 in those days. Reshevsky didn't study openings, yet despite this handicap, was one of those "equals" Botvinnik talked about in the 1950's. In the chess 960 setting, Reshevsky would be right at home, while the more conventional chess players would have problems adusting. |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | wrap99: <Rookfile> It's interesting that you mention "those days:" Reshevsky was arguably the most famous American chess player or even the most famous chess player in the world prior to Fischer. I say this because his prodigy status was mentioned in my high school psychology test book along with Gauss and Mozart. This book was written in the 1960s probably with Fischer being known mainly to chess players -- what other player was widely known outside of chess circles besides SR? |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | RookFile: Hmm? I don't know, Humphrey Bogart? Not an expert in this area, thanks. |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | zanzibar: We're talking about during the 1960's right?
I would guess either Reinfeld or Horowitz, due to their prolific popular writing. |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | wrap99: I met famous primarily *as* a chess player. |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | zanzibar: American, or not?
If not, I would then guess Tal. |
|
| Aug-15-15 | | wrap99: <zanzibar> It could be that in some places, guys like Tal were known even among non-serious players or even non-chess players. But I was struck by reading Reshevsky's name before I had heard of anyone else in chess and at least in the USA, with SR playing Chaplin as a little kid (when Chaplin was incredibly famous) I would bet that SR was the most famous player. As mentioned in previous post, encountering SR in the flesh was a pretty profound thing for me as was meeting Judit Polgar in 1987 when she was just becoming famous -- in the prodigy sense, she may remain famous for a long time due to her parents' experiment. |
|
| Aug-16-15 | | Retireborn: I think in the 40s Capablanca was still the most famous player in the States; he was referred to by Raymond Chandler in "The High Window" (1942) for example. It's possible he was replaced by Reshevsky in the 50s, although I'm not sure people would have necessarily made the connection with the prodigy from the 20s. As for worldwide - impossible to say. |
|
| Aug-16-15 | | wrap99: <Retireborn> As I mentioned, I saw his name in a generic highschool psych textbook. Maybe it is no longer fashionable to discuss prodigies (in the same way that Guiness World Records no longer even has a highest IQ record)so perhaps Reshevsky would be a name that few would know outside of the chess world anymore; Fischer is hands-down still the most famous player in the USA due no doubt to the movies made about him. |
|
| Aug-16-15 | | zanzibar: <<wrap99> This book was written in the 1960s probably with Fischer being known mainly to chess players -- what other player was widely known outside of chess circles besides SR?> Ah, I see, your question is strictly rhetorical, and isn't asking for a 2nd such person. Yes, Reschevsky was well know as a child prodigy with his parent taking him around the world to give simuls. There was even press coverage when a court order stopped the practice (in order for Sammy to gain a non-chess education). |
|
Aug-16-15
 | | Check It Out: <wrap99: Fischer is hands-down still the most famous player in the USA due no doubt to the movies made about him.> Movies? No, I think its because of the media attention he received because he won the world championship in 1972 against Spassky and the Soviet machine during a tense time between the USA and the USSR. The world was hanging on to every move and every shenanigan. Fischer became a household name long before any movies were made about him. |
|
| Aug-16-15 | | wrap99: <Check It Out> But Fischer's fame has been sustained by recent films -- he was world champ almost a half century ago and I continue to be surprised by what young people do not know. (Ask someone born after 2000 about the world before the Internet -- they cannot conceive of it in many ways.) |
|
Aug-17-15
 | | Eggman: <<wrap99>> I think you are underestimating the difficulty of learning the rules of chess by simply watching others play. It is not a prosaic accomplishment at all. I have no problem believing that someone could learn *most* of the rules of chess by watching. The difficult part, though, is to figure out what you *cannot* do, especially as it pertains to the pawns, e.g. that a pawn, unlike all the other chess men, *cannot* move backwards, that it *cannot* move sideways, that a pawn *cannot* move two squares forward *except* on its first move (and even then, can only move two squares forward vertically, i.e. when *not* capturing), that it *cannot* move diagonally *except* when capturing, and that it *cannot* move vertically *except* when *not* capturing. How many times to you need to observe a pawn *not* doing something before you can be sure that it *cannot* do it? And how confusing would castling be? Can any two men perform a similar operation? Or just the king and rook? And don't even get me starting on en passant! Heck, even the object of the game is confusing, i.e. the fact that, instead of simply capturing the king, we have these rules for check, checkmate, and stalemate (and why should stalemate, in which the player to move will lose his king no matter where he goes, be a draw?). Like I said, learning *most* of the rules by just watching is not a great accomplishment, but learning all or even nearly all strikes me as highly implausible. This implausibility is evinced by the fact that listing a few of the more difficult rules has required such a lengthy post! |
|
| Aug-17-15 | | wrap99: <Eggman> I think it is reasonable to assume that both guys still had questions to ask about, as you suggest, castling (the rule that prevents castling through check although the rook can castle through attack seems like something that they would not have been able to derive by observation). But I think underestimating the abilities of a top chess player is very possible -- GMs are just extraordinarily able when it comes to things like memory. (I avoid the entire intelligence discussion.)
I was struck by Karpov memorizing a list of twenty interview questions after brief study or Fischer's memory feats. Deriving the rules would largely be a function of memory, I think. |
|
Aug-17-15
| | Eggman: I don't know if we're recalling different interviews, but my recollection is that Karpov read over a list of 50 questions, rejected 3, and answered the remaining 47 from memory. Impressive either way. As implied by my post, I don't believe that Karpov, Kasparov, Reshevsky, etc, are "making it up" per se - just exaggerating. Though if you're familiar with Reshevsky's character, making stuff up is something you shouldn't put past him. |
|
| Nov-06-15 | | TheFocus: <For a period of ten years - between 1946 and 1956 - Reshevsky was probably the best chessplayer in the world. I feel sure that had he played a match with Botvinnik during that time he would have won and been World Champion> - Robert Fischer. Pure BS. At no time was Reshevsky capable of defeating Botvinnik in a world championship match. |
|
| Nov-06-15 | | Petrosianic: Fischer wasn't good at concealing his biases. He's simply arbitrarily picked all of the time between Alekhine's death and the year before his own emergence. He didn't even shave it down a bit to make it look less like wishful thinking. This was said at a time when he liked the US, and was biased towards it, rather than against it. Of the games they played in the 1946-1955 period, Reshevsky scored +2-4=5. He might possibly have won, but could not be considered a clear favorite in a match. |
|
Nov-06-15
| | keypusher: < TheFocus: <For a period of ten years - between 1946 and 1956 - Reshevsky was probably the best chessplayer in the world. I feel sure that had he played a match with Botvinnik during that time he would have won and been World Champion> - Robert Fischer.
Pure BS. At no time was Reshevsky capable of defeating Botvinnik in a world championship match.> I can't believe I'm taking Sammy's part against Mickey, but that ain't pure BS. Yes, even from 1951 on, Botvinnik would be the favorite, but if Bronstein and Smyslov could draw with him you'd be a fool to say Reshevsky would have no chance to beat him. And of course Smyslov <did> beat him in 1957. |
|
| Nov-06-15 | | TheFocus: Reshesvky couldn't carry Smyslov's jockstrap. |
|
Nov-06-15
 | | HeMateMe: could be some kasparovian revisionism. Because Fischer could beat Reshevsky, it makes Bob look good by implying that Sammy R might have been the best of the earlier generation. Were that the case, Reshevsky would have emerged from the Candidates at some point, and played a world championship match. He just wasn't that good. It might have helped if we had supported such players with a stipend, so that Reshevsky didn't have to do tax returns, instead of studying chess. Had he been a full time player like Fischer, well, who knows? |
|
Nov-06-15
 | | perfidious: The argument has been made that, because Reshevsky scored +1 =3 against Botvinnik in 1955 on top board of USSR-USA, that such a score projects to a Reshevsky victory in a title match. While tremendously strong and evidently a top 5-10 player from circa 1935 to the mid-fifties, Reshevsky never quite stood out from fellow aspirants to the extent that one would have tipped him to claim the crown, unlike Smyslov, winner twice running of the candidates and eventual titleholder. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 59 OF 65 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
