| |
Main
Date: 16 Feb 2008 13:56:26
From: SAT W-7
Subject: If you were a GM would you
|
strive to be in the top 25 GM's in the world or would you be happy to be
in the 70's or 80's 90;s rank in the world ?
Or would you be happy just to be a GM even if it meant you were one of
the weakest GM.s in the world....
Me , i think id be happy just being a no name GM.....Then again if you
put that much of your life into being a GM then why not try harder to be
one of the best ?
Still for me a no name GM would be ok for me because id still be one of
the elate and that would satisfy me ...
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2008 19:06:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 21, 9:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > No, it means he would have refused to play,
> > on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.
>
> Ha! having taken a dig at GK, Its now Fischer's turn, the same Fischer who
> took on the World's strongest players.
Er, um... it seems to me that *every* world
champion does that sort of thing, as a matter
of necessity. You see, the title is usually
won by playing the world's strongest players.
(What's with the Bobby Fischer obsession?)
> I have [laugh] never seen anyone play
> chess with the black pieces like Fischer who didn't seem to give a damn
> about making draws
Try studying the history of chess then. Dr.
Lasker played to win as Black, as did Paul
Morphy, Mikhail Tal, Gary Kasparov, and
gawd knows how many others; you would
of course have realized that, were you not
so *obsessed* with just one famous player!
> - but I see you draw different conclusions from his
> lifetime's play from everyone else.
When "everyone" is thinking the same
way, no one is truly thinking. This is, I
expect, one of the founding principles of
the Evans ratpack: not thinking.
>That of course doesn't mean you are wrong.
Of course not. Generally speaking, what
makes me "wrong" in the sense you mean is
that I report facts you can't handle, psycho-
logically. For instance, in the 1972 world
championship cycle, certain things were not
exactly kosher; *one* example is the way in
which BF qualified. Had all these oddities
happened to have resulted in a Russian
victory, we all know the inevitable result
would be that the western press would have
cried foul. But since "we" won, any such
complaints must be kept -- you know -- hush,
hush.
> Seriously, you might consier sticking to writing about what you can engage
> others in as exploration of a topic
The truth is, it is neigh well impossible to
do that sort of thing with the nearly-IMnes
creature; it is, after all, a vile beast which
is a mind-slave to the Evans ratpack; which
is unable to communicate in plain English
when the going gets tough; which is so
obsessed with connecting itself to others
of famous name that it cannot even write its
own opinions, but instead it must pretend
as though it were a sort of conduit for greater
beings -- gods, to its mind -- whose whims
are the only substance in which it can swim.
The beast has no intellect, no thoughtful
touchstone with which to connect; it is a
vacuous creature, and we, the human folk,
ought to be ashamed for reveling in its
torture, its misery, for poking and prodding
the beast to watch how it reacts.
In a recent news story, three boys were
attacked by a tiger in a zoo; it turns out
that they had been harrying the creature,
and it jumped its protective moat and gave
them what for. I felt *no* sympathy; yet I
am no innocent here; I too am guilty of a
somewhat similar crime; it's a character
flaw, I admit.
Help me to stop, by ceasing your own
pathetic behavior: the mindless parroting
of others, the name-droppings ala a flock
of pigeons, the pretense and "putting on
airs", as k Twain called it. Write like
a human being, and do it in real English
so you can be understood. Think for
yourself for a change, and stop being a
mindless parrot, possessed by others.
Who knows-- you might like it!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2008 21:04:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 19, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Are you agreeing with Adorjan?
No. IMO, what GM Adorjan and so many
others like him are doing, is reminiscing about
the "good old days". Their commentaries are
nothing more than psychology-based attempts
to dismiss the modern, and pretend that all
things were better in their own heydays, back
when they themselves were in their primes.
I take a very different approach; even though
I am not fond of the way things are now, and
even though I don't particularly like many of
the changes which have occurred since my
prime-time years of old, I have no need to go
into a state of denial or pretend that things
were ever so hunky-dory way back when.
> You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this 'test'
> of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for 300
> possible opponents - how will it all end?
How about taking a more scientific approach
to this "thesis" of his? You need to construct
a test which factors in things like chance, and
obviously, a counter-thesis which is equally
likely to be "confirmed" as his, if the results
fall a certain way. But the single most
important thing is to make the thesis and the
test of it known publicly /in advance/, and to
consistently follow up, no matter what the
outcome.
Otherwise you get what is known as cherry-
picking: the fine art of reporting one's hand-
picked successes, while remaining mum on
the predictions which have failed-- that sort of
thing.
> Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he think
> that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
> and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth inviting?
Why the need to filter /through him/? The
fewer these stages of "interpretation", the more
accurate and more realistic will be our picture
of the facts.
> When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
> indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end by
> emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players simply
> innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
> window while draws come in the back door?
The only draws which seem to be truly
objectionable are the illegitimate ones, the
ones which are not contested but arranged
as such. Legitimate draws appear to be a
fundamental part of the game, and in my
own experience, are an excellent way of
providing an intermediate stepping stone
between the weak and the strong players.
Without legitimate draws, there would be
less incentive for weak players to compete
with the strong ones; they would feel even
more out-classed, and unable to compete
with their vast superiors (that's people like
me and I suppose, Larry Evans). : >D
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2008 10:19:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:62ccf65c-5499-4c35-93ee-143c69d84fd3@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Are you agreeing with Adorjan?
>
> No. IMO, what GM Adorjan and so many
> others like him are doing, is reminiscing about
> the "good old days".
Again you ignor whatever was the issue to raise your own. Did you already
forget the question was about ELO-related performance of the top 300
players? Perhaps if you didnt snip the question, then you could answer the
question, instead of free-relating on your own somewhat ked interest
which is at the expense of strong ches splayers?
> Their commentaries are
> nothing more than psychology-based attempts
> to dismiss the modern, and pretend that all
> things were better in their own heydays, back
> when they themselves were in their primes.
>
> I take a very different approach; even though
> I am not fond of the way things are now, and
> even though I don't particularly like many of
> the changes which have occurred since my
> prime-time years of old, I have no need to go
> into a state of denial or pretend that things
> were ever so hunky-dory way back when.
>
>
>> You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this
>> 'test'
>> of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for
>> 300
>> possible opponents - how will it all end?
>
> How about taking a more scientific approach
> to this "thesis" of his? You need to construct
> a test which factors in things like chance, and
> obviously, a counter-thesis which is equally
> likely to be "confirmed" as his, if the results
> fall a certain way. But the single most
> important thing is to make the thesis and the
> test of it known publicly /in advance/, and to
> consistently follow up, no matter what the
> outcome.
I think this cannot be resolved theoretically - but by /in vivo/ testing -
that is to say, have a huge GM-bash, and see what happens.
> Otherwise you get what is known as cherry-
> picking: the fine art of reporting one's hand-
> picked successes, while remaining mum on
> the predictions which have failed-- that sort of
> thing.
>
>
>> Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he
>> think
>> that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
>> and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth
>> inviting?
>
> Why the need to filter /through him/? The
> fewer these stages of "interpretation", the more
> accurate and more realistic will be our picture
> of the facts.
Because he was a W CH candidate, and his opinion is worth a lot on the state
of top level creativity, a lot more than mine. It is not an absolute thing,
but a relative thing - and his opinion is relatively more informed of the
nature of things by virtue of having done it.
>> When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
>> indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end
>> by
>> emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players
>> simply
>> innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
>> window while draws come in the back door?
>
> The only draws which seem to be truly
> objectionable are the illegitimate ones, the
> ones which are not contested but arranged
> as such. Legitimate draws appear to be a
> fundamental part of the game, and in my
> own experience, are an excellent way of
> providing an intermediate stepping stone
> between the weak and the strong players.
?? I put a straight proposition to you, to follow your own point of a top
clicque players knowing overmuch about each others games, but you continue
as if to protest and protect the veracity of draws ?? Don't think it makes
some sense to establish what actually aqppear to be facts, before having to
rush to some pre-emtive defence of an opinion based on those facts?
> Without legitimate draws, there would be
> less incentive for weak players to compete
> with the strong ones; they would feel even
> more out-classed, and unable to compete
> with their vast superiors (that's people like
> me and I suppose, Larry Evans). :>D
That is the opinion of people 'like you' about what you suppose of Larry
Evans.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2008 20:45:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 19, 11:00 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
> available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it at
> chess.
So, you are suggesting that all the people I've
played -- none of them in the top-50 in the world
-- were starving, or else they had some other
sources of income? I find that rather silly; it
looked to me that they were not merely getting
by, but traveling the country -- including the
really boring parts, like here. OTOH, most of
these events take place on the weekends, so
who knows but that some folks can manage a
"day job" AND still find time to travel and play
chess?
> I didn't know the Russkies gave titles for C players? Or is it B?
Sure are a lot of uninformed people around
these parts! In the Gulag, you get a title
just for being strong enough to sit at a chess
board and push the pieces around; they are
made from the bones of rats, which of course
is the priy source of protein. The boards
are drawn by hand in the dirt-- the one thing
in abundance there. Class B is a pipe
dream; half the pieces are eaten before a
game can end (calcium, you know).
> You sometimes remind me of one of those historiy of the navy fans who use
> rather more naval terms than do real sailors.
Hard to larbard! Full speed ahead!
All engines full ahead. Whats that?
Oh, yes of course, I forgot-- cast off!;
untie is from the dock thingies, errr...
> That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that it
> is not Agassi's own?
I am not so much interested in what these
folks *say*, as in the hard facts as indicated
by what they *do*. This is a key difference
betwixt thee and me.
Example: a fellow named Gary Kasparov
*said* he did not release his Knight; yet the
cameras proved he in fact did release it. I
am impressed by the fact of his release, but
you are probably still stuck on GK's denial of
the fact. Stuck, like a stick in the mud, you
can't grok the proved fact of his cheating.
> Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come on
> strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
> and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
> Spassky, and been eliminated.
No, it means he would have refused to play,
on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.
(And why should he be paired against BS in
the *first* round, pray tell? I say pair him
with Arnold Denker or Art Bisguire.)
> Would rather depend how few and how recent. But again, whose opinion is
> this? Since I am perhaps considerably stronger than you
You can bench 100 kilos? I can't see it;
not long ago you said you were three (?)
kilometers tall, so how do you even fit on
the bench? Probably all leg... .
> I must mediate your
> idea from your level of play with seriously hairy great Russian GMs
This can only be a reference to one man:
the renowned girl-cheater, Gary Kasparov!
If he thinks you're strong, then okay.
> An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
> down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.
Was it really his funky play which
prevailed-- or his good moves later on?
Look at my brilliancy against the GC
Master level; I did not win because of
my silly first move, 1. a3, but because
I followed it with moves which were
superior to the Master level's. Look
/deeper/.
> I notice the middle game comes between the opening and the end. Certainly at
> Corus I didn't see anyone fumbling the opening and surviving the middle
> game. Did you?
I was big game hunting in the arctic at the
time; sorry. Thank goodness for those bear-
scare fireworks! And of course, bear mace.
(You can't legally kill or beat-up a bear, even
in self defense, because they are endangered.)
> But the real test is not speculate on Rybka, but to see if
> what you say is true or no without books or gimics.
The pawn odds matches told a tale; even
with a huge opening advantage AND a pawn,
some GMs lose like carrots to Rybka in the
middle game.
> How does the concert pianist virtuoso [you must imagine him without
> sheet-music] know the exact weight to apply to his little finger at the
> 10,000th note?
A: He doesn't. A machine can play better
(i.e. more precisely) than any human can--
just as with chess.
> One might add to 'weight', speed, timing/tempo, and other factors.
Consumer Reports blindfolded several
"expert" wine tasters, and the result was
that they could not reliably tell white from
red. (Much ado is the old story of The
Emperor's New Clothes.)
How much is presumption of perfection,
and how much is /measured/ perfection?
> Now consider 3 things:
>
> a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?
I prefer to guess; it's more fun, you see.
> and if not, would you prefer to ask a
>
> a) concert pianist
> b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists
I would prefer to know the question, then
decide on the appropriate action.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2008 09:11:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 19, 11:00 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
>> available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it
>> at
>> chess.
>
> So, you are suggesting that all the people I've
> played -- none of them in the top-50 in the world
> -- were starving, or else they had some other
> sources of income?
I think you might stick to things you know about, like Sanny's computer, and
stop messing around with things you don't. since this is the 3rd correction
already to the same poing - this time you have introduced the term
'starving'.
>> That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that
>> it
>> is not Agassi's own?
>
> I am not so much interested in what these
> folks *say*, as in the hard facts as indicated
> by what they *do*. This is a key difference
> betwixt thee and me.
I see. Kennedy contra-mundam!
> Example: a fellow named Gary Kasparov
> *said* he did not release his Knight; yet the
> cameras proved he in fact did release it. I
> am impressed by the fact of his release, but
> you are probably still stuck on GK's denial of
> the fact.
Probably? Why do you even bother talking to other people - you are having
too much fun on your own.
> Stuck, like a stick in the mud, you
> can't grok the proved fact of his cheating.
Having introduced this straw-man argument - what would you like to do next,
please discuss it with yourself and let yourself know.
>> Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come
>> on
>> strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
>> and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
>> Spassky, and been eliminated.
>
> No, it means he would have refused to play,
> on account of his FEAR of being knocked out.
Ha! having taken a dig at GK, Its now Fischer's turn, the same Fischer who
took on the World's strongest players. I have [laugh] never seen anyone play
chess with the black pieces like Fischer who didn't seem to give a damn
about making draws -- but I see you draw different conclusions from his
lifetime's play from everyone else. That of course doesn't mean you are
wrong.
> (And why should he be paired against BS in
> the *first* round, pray tell? I say pair him
> with Arnold Denker or Art Bisguire.)
Though, while you opinion is not necessarily wrong, such petty wheedling
comments on singular issues are definitly not right to assess the player.
Its as if you wanted to bring GK and Fischer down to your level, but I think
you never climbed high enough up the mountain to even see the top, nevermind
attempt a perspective from it.
--------
>> An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
>> down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.
>
> Was it really his funky play which
> prevailed-- or his good moves later on?
either or? How about both?
> Look at my brilliancy against the GC
> Master level;
no that, and your reference to it, are totally stupid.
>> Now consider 3 things:
>>
>> a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?
>
> I prefer to guess; it's more fun, you see.
>
>
>> and if not, would you prefer to ask a
>>
>> a) concert pianist
>> b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists
>
> I would prefer to know the question, then
> decide on the appropriate action.
If you hadn't diverted yourself to such large extent, then perhaps you would
remember what it was - like the analogy of chess perception to the playing
of a 10,000th note by a virtuoso. But this was just yesterday Greg! And you
have come to grief against all sorts of people here recently based on dreams
memories and reflections of much older, more elusive materials.
Seriously, you might consier sticking to writing about what you can engage
others in as exploration of a topic, since otherwise it not only drains them
engaging you, but all sense goes down the drain too. I am just trying to be
helpful.
Cordially, Help Phil
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Feb 2008 21:29:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 17, 9:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.
Well, look at Anatoly Karpov: he actually played
chess, as you say, and made very good money.
Others in a similar position chose not to "play",
and made far less. How much of this relates to
chess talent, and how much to individual choice;
I mean, can you give an example of a GM who
chose to play a lot, but who could make no
money? Please do not reach back through the
time machine, grasping at straws like William
Steinitz; that fellow could not even travel via a
Ford model A, let alone airplanes! He may have
owned a bicycle though; you know the kind I
mean: exceedingly tall front wheel, with a tiny
back wheel and no chain since the pedals are
fixed to the front wheel directly.
> >> But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
> >> it,
> >> means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that?
You mean, like girls and stuff? Gee, I don't have
time for that now, but *after* I get the title -- which is
really mine since about 1962 when the Russkies
conspired against me 'cause I'm so great -- afterward
I will have a house shaped like a Rook, and lots and
lots of girls, ya know, just for decoration. Mainly I
just want to play chess; no, make that: all I ever
want to do is play chess!
> >> What if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?
Um, no. Thank goodness very few grandmasters
have to make such a choice! Many of them have
enough /talent/ to compete at a high level without
having to go all Dr. Frankenstein on us.
> a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic talent,
> he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
> this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation
Nah. First of all, if his /talent/ is as great as you
suggest, then he would likely still make it through
the /first/ round; its the later rounds that would tend
to show him to be "rusty" -- when he is truly tested
by players of his own caliber.
And secondly, again, /talent/ is not the preparation
of tricky moves in the openings; think of Emanuel
Lasker or Sammy Reshevsky instead. Who cares
if a few recent opening developments are missed?
A talented player does not rely on study and hard
work, but his, um, talent. For an example, just
disable Rybka's openings book; yes, it fumbles a
few things early on, but so what? in the end, this
matters little.
> b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner and
> Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been checking
> this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his reply
> about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in his
> own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."
A scientific approach suggests determining
what strong players /actually do/, not what they
/say/ about what they do. Food for munching on.
Heck, if you ask weak players what they do,
they often say they play good moves but are
unlucky. If you ask middling players, they say
much the same thing, pointing to being out-
booked or to a single tactical error, as if *it*
were an offending third party which intervened!
Why should strong players be believed, then?
> While that is an interesting aside - my question is more a fantasy one.
> Basically, "would you like to be like Fischer?" could be answered at any
> period of his life, though possibly one period invokes the next. It's a
> nasty question, and I note that here, as elsewhere, no one has yet said
> "yes."
Perhaps most people would prefer to be like
the Budda: perhaps a bit overweight, but not
so loony-toony as BF. Balanced, or /in
harmony/, as they say.
> One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
> obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~
>
> if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
> tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?
>
> Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999, and
> Khalifman proved it!
You mean, like an exact arrangement, as per
the FIDE list? That is silly. The unique thing
about such an event would be that the number
of participants would preclude a thorough
openings preparation for any particular opponent.
Instead of "TNs" prepared for particular players,
we would see TNs which are prepared for just
anybody.
I don't think it is wise to mollycoddle those
who may be in denial of the validity of ratings;
to readily adopt their unique interpretations on
this to comfort them, or those who make such
comments regarding chess as an art, rather
than a sport. It is clear to me that had such
players won, some would likely be among
the nasty types who deride their opponents'
characters or laziness, but because they
have lost, they have a certain /need/ to explain,
to justify the (partial) failure.
Let us instead try to remain objective. Prove
that the winners, the world champions and so
forth, were lacking in "art"; prove that these
"losers" had lots more of it, or of superior
quality; prove this *objectively*, my friend.
As for me, I have my own opinions regarding
which players were artful or creative, and it
seems to have nothing to do with their relative
success in competition, except that by being
successful, I was more likely to later see and
study their games, after the fact. A few of the
real artists were world champs-- just accept it.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Feb 2008 11:09:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0a299779-5e5e-411a-bd0e-81a4628d9694@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
>> obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~
>>
>> if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
>> tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?
>>
>> Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999,
>> and
>> Khalifman proved it!
>
> You mean, like an exact arrangement, as per
> the FIDE list? That is silly. The unique thing
> about such an event would be that the number
> of participants would preclude a thorough
> openings preparation for any particular opponent.
Are you agreeing with Adorjan?
You see, if most of the players at Corus at now at Morelia, then this 'test'
of his thesis is not being met. So what happens if you can't prepare for 300
possible opponents - how will it all end?
> Instead of "TNs" prepared for particular players,
> we would see TNs which are prepared for just
> anybody.
Sure!
> I don't think it is wise to mollycoddle those
> who may be in denial of the validity of ratings;
> to readily adopt their unique interpretations on
> this to comfort them, or those who make such
> comments regarding chess as an art, rather
> than a sport.
That is a bit too far here. Since I assume your agreement, let's not rush to
any rash conclusions, and neither excuse nor condemn why it is. One thing to
do at this point is to cast the question around to some other people, and
attend on their views, pro and con and dunno - and then actually assess the
consequences.
Certainly Adorjan has plenty more to say on this topic - like, does he think
that the chess public only consider the top 30 players to have any genius
and creativity in the game, and 970 other GMs are not even worth inviting?
When some many draws abound, whether this is fair comment or not, some
indication exists that it might be looked at a little closer, no? To end by
emphasising a point of your own - are the top class of 2700 players simply
innured to each other's play to such degree that creativity goes out the
window while draws come in the back door?
Phil Innes
> It is clear to me that had such
> players won, some would likely be among
> the nasty types who deride their opponents'
> characters or laziness, but because they
> have lost, they have a certain /need/ to explain,
> to justify the (partial) failure.
>
> Let us instead try to remain objective. Prove
> that the winners, the world champions and so
> forth, were lacking in "art"; prove that these
> "losers" had lots more of it, or of superior
> quality; prove this *objectively*, my friend.
>
> As for me, I have my own opinions regarding
> which players were artful or creative, and it
> seems to have nothing to do with their relative
> success in competition, except that by being
> successful, I was more likely to later see and
> study their games, after the fact. A few of the
> real artists were world champs-- just accept it.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 19 Feb 2008 11:00:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0a299779-5e5e-411a-bd0e-81a4628d9694@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 9:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.
>
> Well, look at Anatoly Karpov: he actually played
> chess, as you say, and made very good money.
>
> Others in a similar position chose not to "play",
> and made far less.
Volition is not Adorjan's point at all. I think he means that in terms of
available money in the game at any one time, 30 to 50 players can earn it at
chess.
>
>> >> But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
>> >> it,
>> >> means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do
>> >> that?
>
> You mean, like girls and stuff?
Like normal socialisation.
> Gee, I don't have
> time for that now, but *after* I get the title -- which is
> really mine since about 1962 when the Russkies
I didn't know the Russkies gave titles for C players? Or is it B?
You sometimes remind me of one of those historiy of the navy fans who use
rather more naval terms than do real sailors.
> conspired against me 'cause I'm so great -- afterward
> I will have a house shaped like a Rook, and lots and
> lots of girls, ya know, just for decoration. Mainly I
> just want to play chess; no, make that: all I ever
> want to do is play chess!
What's a bit sad Greg, is that maybe you are not aware that you just /may
be/ projecting onto Fischer your own little fantasy?
>> a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic
>> talent,
>> he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
>> this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation
>
> Nah. First of all, if his /talent/ is as great as you
> suggest, then he would likely still make it through
> the /first/ round; its the later rounds that would tend
> to show him to be "rusty" -- when he is truly tested
> by players of his own caliber.
That is an interesting point of view. Will it stagger you to learn that it
is not Agassi's own? It is not unknown in chess - two examples eg, are
Fischer and more currently Topalov. Both need to play themselves in.
Fischer survived all-play-all and Swiss tournaments because he could come on
strong after playing in. But many modern tournaments are knowck out type,
and best of 3. This would mean he would have lost in the first round to
Spassky, and been eliminated.
> And secondly, again, /talent/ is not the preparation
> of tricky moves in the openings;
Yes - i don't think it is /all/ preparation and tricks - preparation is also
performance based, which deals with what happens to you OTB. This is often
thought to be the reason for training matches.
> think of Emanuel
> Lasker or Sammy Reshevsky instead. Who cares
> if a few recent opening developments are missed?
Would rather depend how few and how recent. But again, whose opinion is
this? Since I am perhaps considerably stronger than you, I must mediate your
idea from your level of play with seriously hairy great Russian GMs, who do
not agree with you. I am much less sure of these things than you.
An interesting illustration is Tony Miles whose 'outrageous play' brought
down the world's top GMs - even the W. Ch a couple of times.
> A talented player does not rely on study and hard
> work, but his, um, talent.
Your opinion again Greg? Don't people we call genius, in chess and
generally, often say 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration?
> For an example, just
> disable Rybka's openings book; yes, it fumbles a
> few things early on, but so what? in the end, this
> matters little.
I notice the middle game comes between the opening and the end. Certainly at
Corus I didn't see anyone fumbling the opening and surviving the middle
game. Did you? But the real test is not speculate on Rybka, but to see if
what you say is true or no without books or gimics.
>> b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner
>> and
>> Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been
>> checking
>> this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his
>> reply
>> about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in
>> his
>> own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."
>
> A scientific approach suggests determining
> what strong players /actually do/, not what they
> /say/ about what they do. Food for munching on.
Sure it is. Its easier for people to understand a concrete visual metaphor-
which is probably why that is offered - ["do you get the picture?"] but not
necessarily a representation of what is going on.
> Heck, if you ask weak players what they do,
> they often say they play good moves but are
> unlucky. If you ask middling players, they say
> much the same thing, pointing to being out-
> booked or to a single tactical error, as if *it*
> were an offending third party which intervened!
> Why should strong players be believed, then?
That is a non-sequiter to perception in chess and its representation.
And chess is not usual - it is often as difficult to talk about /what
happens/ as ... music! In fact, in order to make this parallel comment
Adorjan replied with the following question [which is not about playing
chess, but about how we understand stuff]
How does the concert pianist virtuoso [you must imagine him without
sheet-music] know the exact weight to apply to his little finger at the
10,000th note?
One might add to 'weight', speed, timing/tempo, and other factors.
Now consider 3 things:
a) do you /know/ the answer or guess at it?
and if not, would you prefer to ask a
a) concert pianist
b) a cognitive psychologist who studies concert pianists
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 18 Feb 2008 20:45:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 17, 7:19 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> I think Adorjan more likely means that only the top thirty or so GMs
> can make a living from just playing chess in tournaments and simuls.
> The rest of them make most of their money from giving lessons and so
> on.
But alas, giving lessons is *easier* than competing
or giving simuls; where is the "sympathy" part-- the
part where we are supposed to feel sorry for the
majority of GMs? (Was that not the gist of the
commentary, the complaint?)
> > I keep using the term "fly there", because I think this in itself
> > refutes the assertion that GMs don't make any money; if that were
> > true, they would all ride the bus (or hitchhike, as one local USCF
> > master used to do).
> The plane is a no-brainer. To pick a random example, Chicago to Las
> Vegas and back by Greyhound takes 36-40 hours each way and costs about
> $150 if you buy your ticket two weeks in advance (and about $300 if
> you don't). Flying takes four hours each way and costs about $200.
> So, if you give a $25 chess lesson on each of the two days of
> travelling you save, you break even. And you don't have to spend
> 72-80 hours on a bus.
Yes, that definitely was a "no brain" response, since
obviously only a patzer would arrange his schedule
such as to have no events between Chicago and Las
Vegas, Nevada!
St people, like say GMs, can plan a bit better
than that; in fact, even ordinary people can. I know
of one fellow who arranged a nice triangular route,
going from one place to another, each stop being
approximately equidistant, and always ending up
back at his "home base". I notice that there are
lots of chess tournaments in some states, and so
basing oneself in one of those areas would render
cross-country bus rides moot; one local even talks
of a wide variety of such events taking place in
California, around the S.F. Bay area.
Trouble is, these areas may involve competition
from other GMs; but that, too, can be taken into
consideration when planning. One idea is to
steer for events which are likely to involve a big
tie for first; another idea is to figure out who will
be the other GMs, and prepare specifically for
them.
Obviously, there is no reason a GM cannot
afford a car-- a Toyota Yaris perhaps. The bus
comment was to put things into perspective, as
there are worse things, like hitch-hiking to chess
tournaments. The city of Las Vegas, of course,
has other attractions which draw chess players;
I'm talking about the high quality food at very
reasonable prices -- not women, gambling or
booze, of course... . ; >D
Like I said, one fellow is charging $35 per hour
here for chess lessons; sorry, but I can't muster
sympathy for the poor chaps who must slave
away for only three times that, while doing
nothing more than teaching chess; it's just not
in me.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 03:38:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 17, 6:05 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> Peter Szekely springs to mind. This descendent of Dracula could have
> been a great GM (according to Judit Polgar), but he settled for
> maintaining his rating by very short draws, which thus ensured that he
> got invitations to further tournaments. A few weeks all-expenses-paid
> holiday in Havana for playing 150 moves? Who wouldn't say yes to that?
I have noticed that there are plenty of so-called
seminars which take place in exotic locales, or
even on luxury cruise ships. Some folks, having
once tasted the sweet smell of success, return
again and again; there is even one of these
advertised in Chess Lies magazine.
I am tired of hunting grizzlies and sharks with
a crossbow and no back-up to save me if things
go wrong (boring!); what do you know about these
descendants of Dracula? Are they legal game?
Is it possible to hunt them with guns (loaded with
silver bullets, of course), or should one use a
wooden stake? Are there many of them (very
challenging), or only a few (boring)? It goes
without saying that I would not hunt out their
caskets by day, like a coward; no, I want to
see the reds of their eyes (yes, reds) before I
strike!
You may have heard that the Wolf-man is no
longer a problem; yup, that was me. And the
Frankenstein monster, too.
-- Sammy Terry
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 03:05:11
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
Peter Szekely springs to mind. This descendent of Dracula could have
been a great GM (according to Judit Polgar), but he settled for
maintaining his rating by very short draws, which thus ensured that he
got invitations to further tournaments. A few weeks all-expenses-paid
holiday in Havana for playing 150 moves? Who wouldn't say yes to that?
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2008 19:37:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
Chess One wrote:
> Adorjan told me in his interview that maybe the top 30 players in the world
> actually earned money by playing chess - he admitted that other opinion says
> top 50.
From what I've seen, even American GMs can
afford to fly to tournaments, when they want to.
Let's say they want to play in a tourney in Las
Vegas; no problemo: they just hop a plane.
Perhaps GM Adorjan is suggesting that a GM
likely could make *better money* at some other
occupation than chess. The idea that they
can't "make money" is ridiculous; fly here and
I'll show you a guy who charges $35 per hour
for lessons, and three of him would barely make
one GM!
I keep using the term "fly there", because I
think this in itself refutes the assertion that GMs
don't make any money; if that were true, they
would all ride the bus (or hitchhike, as one
local USCF master used to do).
> > Or would you be happy just to be a GM even if it meant you were one of
> > the weakest GM.s in the world....
>
> But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for it,
> means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that? What
> if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?
A lot of it is talent, by which I don't mean
study and hard work, but natural talent; in
other words, visualization skill and the
ability to figure out what the opponent is
trying to do, and just avoid losing blunders.
Oh, and the will to fight on, even after you
make one or two of those!
> > Me , i think id be happy just being a no name GM.....Then again if you
> > put that much of your life into being a GM then why not try harder to be
> > one of the best ?
> >
> > Still for me a no name GM would be ok for me because id still be one of
> > the elate and that would satisfy me ...
>
> Yes. It is understandable! I suppose the ultimate question along these lines
> would be, "would you like to be like Fischer?" And there's the rub, as
> Shakespeare said.
The idea that you can strive to be among the
top players in the world, not merely a no-name
GM, needs to factor in things like innate ability.
Some folks just don't /have what it takes/ to
reach the very top, while others do, but never
get there. From what I've seen, what are
called "weak GMs" simply don't have it in them,
which is why they get stuck; lucky for them, the
FIDE title is permanent, not rating-based.
I've seen people who talked about being a
"former master" or a "former expert"; people
who lost the highest title they ever earned due
to a decline, perhaps due to just getting older.
Looking at them it is hard to feel sorry for the
"weak GMs", who can choose to write chess
books (which people will actually buy!) or give
lessons, no matter how much their results
may decline.
But to train and compete for the world title
is a whole different ball game. Relatively few
have a real shot, no matter how hard they
might work. Some play knowing they have
no real shot at the title-- just to see how far
they can get, or for the opportunity to play
the big name players (in person, not on ICC!).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 09:38:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> Adorjan told me in his interview that maybe the top 30 players in the
>> world
>> actually earned money by playing chess - he admitted that other opinion
>> says
>> top 50.
>
> From what I've seen, even American GMs can
> afford to fly to tournaments, when they want to.
> Let's say they want to play in a tourney in Las
> Vegas; no problemo: they just hop a plane.
>
> Perhaps GM Adorjan is suggesting that a GM
> likely could make *better money* at some other
I think he means to earn their income by actually playing chess.
> occupation than chess. The idea that they
> can't "make money" is ridiculous; fly here and
> I'll show you a guy who charges $35 per hour
> for lessons, and three of him would barely make
> one GM!
<. >
>> But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for
>> it,
>> means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that?
>> What
>> if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?
>
> A lot of it is talent, by which I don't mean
> study and hard work, but natural talent; in
> other words, visualization skill and the
> ability to figure out what the opponent is
> trying to do, and just avoid losing blunders.
> Oh, and the will to fight on, even after you
> make one or two of those!
Is our Greg telling us his own experience, or guessing at that of GMs? I
think there are two pertinent points;
a) if Agassi didn't hit a ball for 6 months, then despite fantastic talent,
he might not make it through the first round of a tennis event - I think
this is a fair analogy of chess preparation to sports preparation
b) while this certainly needs more study, suggestions by Howard Gardner and
Adrian de Groot on 'visualization' need to be taken in. I have been checking
this with some strong chess players, and since we mention Adorjan, his reply
about visualization [was it like a video camera on fast-forward?] was in his
own words, "I do not see the board, I do not see the pieces."
<... >
>> Yes. It is understandable! I suppose the ultimate question along these
>> lines
>> would be, "would you like to be like Fischer?" And there's the rub, as
>> Shakespeare said.
>
> The idea that you can strive to be among the
> top players in the world, not merely a no-name
> GM, needs to factor in things like innate ability.
While that is an interesting aside - my question is more a fantasy one.
Basically, "would you like to be like Fischer?" could be answered at any
period of his life, though possibly one period invokes the next. It's a
nasty question, and I note that here, as elsewhere, no one has yet said
"yes."
> Some folks just don't /have what it takes/ to
> reach the very top, while others do, but never
> get there. From what I've seen, what are
> called "weak GMs" simply don't have it in them,
> which is why they get stuck; lucky for them, the
> FIDE title is permanent, not rating-based.
One last comment on this from Adorjan, was ~ in fact, it was a question I
obtained from him in presenting an interview to Mickey Adams~
if the top 200 or 300 players should all take part in a 13 round
tournament, would you expect the result to accord with Elo?
Adorjan didn't think so, somewhat echoing Khalifman's comment in 1999, and
Khalifman proved it!
Phil Innes
> I've seen people who talked about being a
> "former master" or a "former expert"; people
> who lost the highest title they ever earned due
> to a decline, perhaps due to just getting older.
> Looking at them it is hard to feel sorry for the
> "weak GMs", who can choose to write chess
> books (which people will actually buy!) or give
> lessons, no matter how much their results
> may decline.
>
> But to train and compete for the world title
> is a whole different ball game. Relatively few
> have a real shot, no matter how hard they
> might work. Some play knowing they have
> no real shot at the title-- just to see how far
> they can get, or for the opportunity to play
> the big name players (in person, not on ICC!).
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 12:19:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Perhaps GM Adorjan is suggesting that a GM likely could make *better
> money* at some other occupation than chess. The idea that they
> can't "make money" is ridiculous; fly here and I'll show you a guy
> who charges $35 per hour for lessons, and three of him would barely
> make one GM!
I think Adorjan more likely means that only the top thirty or so GMs
can make a living from just playing chess in tournaments and simuls.
The rest of them make most of their money from giving lessons and so
on.
> I keep using the term "fly there", because I think this in itself
> refutes the assertion that GMs don't make any money; if that were
> true, they would all ride the bus (or hitchhike, as one local USCF
> master used to do).
The plane is a no-brainer. To pick a random example, Chicago to Las
Vegas and back by Greyhound takes 36-40 hours each way and costs about
$150 if you buy your ticket two weeks in advance (and about $300 if
you don't). Flying takes four hours each way and costs about $200.
So, if you give a $25 chess lesson on each of the two days of
travelling you save, you break even. And you don't have to spend
72-80 hours on a bus.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Erotic Pickled Sword (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a razor-sharp blade but it's preserved
in vinegar and genuinely erotic!
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 07:00:48
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
I understand about giving lessons to make money but lets project your
living for a full year can you make it then as a lower rated GM without
having a full time job ?
At the very least money that i can live on is about I,I50 $ a month
, mortgage , bills and gas , food , ect , ect ......That would just
barley get me by i think ?
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Feb 2008 21:41:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
On Feb 17, 10:00 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> I understand about giving lessons to make money but lets project your
> living for a full year can you make it then as a lower rated GM without
> having a full time job ?
My friend, I have already described a fellow
who "makes it" from a position several classes
BELOW the GM level! Now, perhaps his
standard of living is not particularly high, is not
good enough for a person who, it might be
assumed, could get a well-paying job in some
other filed if he wanted.
The difference is that the local-yokel must
scrap day by day, while the GM has a title for
life; the GM can, for instance, get online and
make money from home giving online lessons,
or he can give simuls or choose to travel and
compete for prize money; in sum, he has a
great advantage.
> At the very least money that i can live on is about I,I50 $ a month
> , mortgage , bills and gas , food , ect , ect ......That would just
> barley get me by i think ?
Who said anything about home-ownership?
Hey, you can't take it with you! Try a nice,
inexpensive apartment and live on the cheap;
remember, you won't be needing that tax
deduction you get for mortgage interest
because as a chess professional, you will
be in a low, low tax bracket. OTOH, if you
are raising a family, you should be shot for
mucking around with chess; keep your house,
your wife and kids, and give up the less
important things. Like chess; of course, you
knew that was less important... right?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2008 17:06:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: If you were a GM would you
|
"SAT W-7" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> strive to be in the top 25 GM's in the world or would you be happy to be
> in the 70's or 80's 90;s rank in the world ?
Adorjan told me in his interview that maybe the top 30 players in the world
actually earned money by playing chess - he admitted that other opinion says
top 50.
> Or would you be happy just to be a GM even if it meant you were one of
> the weakest GM.s in the world....
But to maintain the standard of GM performance if you are not paid for it,
means giving up much else in order to do so. Would you want to do that? What
if it were giving up everything else, still want to be a GM?
> Me , i think id be happy just being a no name GM.....Then again if you
> put that much of your life into being a GM then why not try harder to be
> one of the best ?
>
> Still for me a no name GM would be ok for me because id still be one of
> the elate and that would satisfy me ...
Yes. It is understandable! I suppose the ultimate question along these lines
would be, "would you like to be like Fischer?" And there's the rub, as
Shakespeare said.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
|
