Main
Date: 18 Feb 2008 23:58:28
From: Offramp
Subject: Chessy fan tutti
A while ago I was reading a book about Capablanca.
I thought: "Go on Jos=E9! Teach that chalk-scratcher Lasker a lesson!"

Now I am reading a book on Lasker:
I am thinking: "Emanuel will sort that parvenu Cuban out!"




 
Date: 19 Feb 2008 06:20:14
From:
Subject: Re: Chessy fan tutti
On Feb 19, 2:58=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> A while ago I was reading a book about Capablanca.
> I thought: "Go on Jos=E9! Teach that chalk-scratcher Lasker a lesson!"
>
> Now I am reading a book on Lasker:
> I am thinking: "Emanuel will sort that parvenu Cuban out!"

I have had similiar experiences. Reading Smyslov's notes for his
world title matches with Botvinnik, I kept thinking "Go on Vasily!
Teach that commie bastard a lesson!". Then, reading Botvinnik on the
same games, I kept thinking "Go on Mikhail! Teach that commie bastard
a lesson!"


 
Date: 19 Feb 2008 01:17:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chessy fan tutti
On Feb 19, 2:58 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:

> A while ago I was reading a book about Capablanca.
> I thought: "Go on Jos=E9! Teach that chalk-scratcher Lasker a lesson!"
>
> Now I am reading a book on Lasker:
> I am thinking: "Emanuel will sort that parvenu Cuban out!"

I did it in the opposite order. I was gravely
disappointed to watch how each author did
his best to twist and turn the facts to make
his respective idol the hero, and the idol's
opponents into the sinister villains.

For instance, if Em. Lasker is to be the
hero, his opponents' excuses of feeling ill
are called into question; unfortunately, in
the follow-up book by a different author who
had idolized a different fellow, EL's own
identical excuses are in turn given short
shrift! LOL

Alas, all one can do in the end is assume
that *everyone* was nearly always "ill" back
then, for want of proper nutrition and so
forth, and ignore reported health issues
entirely. It's a miracle that any chessplayer
lived to the age of thirty back then... .

The sad fact is that when *I* make a report
of ill health, it is not a mere invention or
twisting of facts to suffice as an excuse
for performing poorly; on the contrary, I can
and do win when sick-- just not consistently.
And I lose often enough when I'm perfectly
healthy, too. Generally, I include the sate
of my health in order to explain /why/ I
played even worse than normal (for me),
and nothing more; it can safely be assumed
that when I outperform, it is because my
opponents played worse than normal (for
them), or else because they fell into lines
which I just happened to know better than
most.

One example of this occurred in my last
game against the dreaded Master level at
GetClub. It just so happens that the GC
program went right into a type of position
I had studied in some Andy Soltis book.
The game proceeded in such a way that
I was not allowed to get the thrust p-d4 in,
which was lucky for me, as that was not
the best idea anyhow! Leaving this pawn
back took the opponent's Bishop out of
play virtually /permanently/, and in effect
it locked the pawns such that they could
not advance without material loss. We
all know what happens when a computer
runs into fixed pawns-- it founders, like a
rowboat lost at sea in a storm.

Anyhow, you can't take what those hack
writers say very seriously after seeing the
many contradictions and self-serving
"interpretations" of the facts they might
choose to report (while leaving out any
they can't quite handle). In spite of these
serious issues, I found the material to be
interesting, but there are holes; just for
instance, when I read about EL's writings
on philosophy, I wanted to see them for
myself; instead, the reader is sumily
told to disregard them, etc. The thing is,
I don't need some lame-brained chess
book writer to decide for me what is
worth reading and what is not, based on
/his biases/ and opinions.

The same thing applies when it comes
to the moves of their games; I don't need
a patzer, who is not even a GM, to tell me
if a move is good or bad, I have my own,
which is to say Fritz's, opinion! ; >D

Maybe there are a couple of writers out
there somewhere who don't muck up the
facts to fit their /fantasies/ regarding the
subject, the chess hero; perhaps the book
by Edward Winter on Jose Capablanca is
of this vein-- I don't know. Certainly, the
ones I have seen were self-explanatory as
to why the authors spent years of their
lives collecting so much data on a single
player; it's a bit like a religious cult, I
suppose, in that the object of worship
and admiration is long since dead.


-- help bot