| |
Main
Date: 15 Jul 2006 03:03:38
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
This game somehow stays with me:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132735
It also makes me think about Morphy.
Morphy's games feel even more artistic,
more natural, certainly simpler (with one
notable exception though). On the other
hand he played much earlier, and he didn't
play Steinitz, and at Steinitz's best --
Morphy's opponents belonged to the pre-Steinitz
era.
====
Wlod
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 06:41:11
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> Alan OBrien wrote:
> >
> > I have never liked that phrase, 'in his prime'. [...]
> >
> > I prefer, 'at his best'.
>
> These two phrases, while similar,
> are distinct enough to justify both.
>
> "in his prime" refers to a contigous period of time.
>
> "at his best" refers to someone's best moments
> (possibly spread over time) or moods, or to the
> abilities and virtues, or to particular results, acts, ...
>
> We need both expressions.
I agree completely with Wlod on this semantic issue, and my use of
"prime" was intended in just the sense he gives it. Also I think
Winawer, like most gentlemen of his time, would have taken serious
exception to being "poked in the buttarks."
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 23:56:33
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
Alan OBrien wrote:
>
> I have never liked that phrase, 'in his prime'. [...]
>
> I prefer, 'at his best'.
These two phrases, while similar,
are distinct enough to justify both.
"in his prime" refers to a contigous period of time.
"at his best" refers to someones best moments
(possibly spread over time) or moods, or to the
abilities and virtues, or to particular results, acts, ...
We need both expressions.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 17:17:03
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Re: Natural talents / Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
I wondered:
> PS. Which Steintz's move was a mistake?
> I'd say that 9... Nxe4 was the culprit, that
> it was already the losing move.
I especially like 17... Be4. Is it what Steintz
had mnissed? Naeh, he had to feel dizzy, when
exposed to such a perfectly rolling game.
The whole Winawer's play was amazing.
Everything just worked for him like in a crazy
but perfect time piece (watch).
See:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132735
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 17:10:08
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
Subject: Natural talents / Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Winawer was a great player, today somewhat
> underrated. In his prime (circa 1867-1883) he
> had about as good a tournament record as anyone in
> the world.
Indeed, Winawer was one of the greatest
natural talents of all time. One could also
think about an historical line of three players:
Winawer -- > Reshevsky (Rzeszewski) --> Najdorf
of three great amateur players, who were more into
business than into chess. One may argue that
this line was slightly down-going, with Winawer being
relatiuvely to his time the strongest of the three, and
possibly the best in business too, while Sammy was
perhaps more into chess than the other two.
The custoy choice of the greatest
natural chess talent is Capablanca. I disagree.
Capablanca did nothing but chess. Outside
of chess he was nothing but a good looking
and charming playboy and perhaps a bit of
a snob. he was very good in PR though.
I am convinced that he worked on chess a lot,
more than Lasker, more than majority of the
chess players. He did so since childhood.
He was not able to complete his studies on Columbia.
Books or no books, a chess set or no chess
set, it doesn't matter. He had enough of material
from games and tournaments, the books were
not important to him, in those days. And he could
easily study chess in his mind, without a chess
board--it is MUCH MORE efficient this way, when you
have the ability.
(This mode of studing can be good even for
much weaker players, as long as they do it
intensively).
Thus the usual arguments supporting Capablanca's
"natural ability" do not convince me. Actually,
the arguments making the greatest impact were
coming from Capablanca himself, since he was
doing PR with ease unknown to Euwe. Where Euwe
would defend himself and his (impressive!) results
for hald a page, Capablanca would simply write:
my tournament results during those years were
better than anybody's else in the world.
I have no doubts that modestr Lasker had way
more of natural ability than singly chess minded
Capablanca. But let's concentrate on Winawer,
who "dropped from the clouds" (Lowenthal) at
the Paris tournament, 1867, to share the second
prize. He had to be known to someone, prehaps
to some Russian player, perhaps from skittles,
to be admitted to the tournament, when one
of the invited players failed to participate. In
those days it was still possible to admit
a player to a strong(!) tournament just like this,
on someone's recomandation. Winawer was already
twenty nine years old at the time.
Let's also remember about the significant theoretical
contributions by Winawer. Capa had some too but
not on a comparable scale. (You're welcome to
challenge and dispute this claim).
> I would recommend Tomasz Lissowski's
> monograph "Szymon Winawer" (2000 The Chess Player,
> Nottingham, ISBN 1 901034 38 0) to anyone interested
> in him.
Thank you, Taylor, for this information
and for the link from your next post.
Regards,
Wlod
PS. Which Steintz's move was a mistake?
I'd say that 9... Nxe4 was the culprit, that
it was already the losing move.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 07:58:43
From:
Subject: Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
> > This game somehow stays with me:
> >
> > http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132735
> >
> > It also makes me think about Morphy.
> > Morphy's games feel even more artistic,
> > more natural, certainly simpler (with one
> > notable exception though). On the other
> > hand he played much earlier, and he didn't
> > play Steinitz, and at Steinitz's best --
> > Morphy's opponents belonged to the pre-Steinitz
> > era.
>
> Winawer was a great player, today somewhat underrated. In his prime
> (circa 1867-1883) he had about as good a tournament record as anyone in
> the world. By the time of the game you show (1896) he was in decline,
> but still had flashes of brilliance.
> I would recommend Tomasz Lissowski's monograph "Szymon Winawer" (2000
> The Chess Player, Nottingham, ISBN 1 901034 38 0) to anyone interested
> in him.
A review of Lissowski's book on Winawer:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review267.pdf
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2006 05:30:54
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Winawer was a great player, today somewhat underrated. In his prime
>> (circa 1867-1883)
I have never liked that phrase, 'in his prime'. It conjurs up an image of a
spectator poking Winawer in the buttarks and saying, "Boy, Szymon, you are
SURE in your prime!"
I prefer, 'at his best'.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 13:41:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
Alan OBrien <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have never liked that phrase, 'in his prime'. It conjurs up an
> image of a spectator poking Winawer in the buttarks and saying,
> "Boy, Szymon, you are SURE in your prime!"
It does? Why?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Miniature Slimy Soap (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a personal hygiene product but it's
covered in goo and you can hold in it
your hand!
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2006 06:27:23
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Szymon Winawer, the James Bond of chess
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
> This game somehow stays with me:
>
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132735
>
> It also makes me think about Morphy.
> Morphy's games feel even more artistic,
> more natural, certainly simpler (with one
> notable exception though). On the other
> hand he played much earlier, and he didn't
> play Steinitz, and at Steinitz's best --
> Morphy's opponents belonged to the pre-Steinitz
> era.
Winawer was a great player, today somewhat underrated. In his prime
(circa 1867-1883) he had about as good a tournament record as anyone in
the world. By the time of the game you show (1896) he was in decline,
but still had flashes of brilliance.
I would recommend Tomasz Lissowski's monograph "Szymon Winawer" (2000
The Chess Player, Nottingham, ISBN 1 901034 38 0) to anyone interested
in him.
|
|
