| |
Main
Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:19:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
http://www.samsloan.com/palbenko.htm
Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory
Pal Benko is one of the world's leading grandmasters of chess. He was
once ranked in the top ten players in the world and is now the world's
leading authority on chess endgames.
This book contains 72 of his endgame columns which were originally
published in Chess Life magazine.
Everybody who has seen this book likes it, including, most
importantly, Pal Benko himself.
Sam Sloan
(Dealer Discounts are available for Large Orders)
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:59:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 9:44 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What is a weak player? A good test is someone whose tournament results
> are poor. Sam Loyd, perhaps the most famous American composer ever,
> quit playing after his disastrous result at Paris in 1867.
>
> Alain C. White in SAM LOYD AND HIS CHESS PROBLEMS writes on page 47:
> "What induced Loyd to enter the International Masters' Tournament at
> Paris in 1867 has always been a mystery to me. Browning has a poem
> about how Dante wished to excel for once as an artist and Raphael
> aspired to distinction in poetry; so it may be that Loyd, who had the
> very highest fame as a problemist, desired to be known rather as a
> great player. Be that as it may, he entered the Congress as
> representative of America against Kolisch, Winawer, Steinitz and some
> ten other masters....and his final score was only 6 won, 17 lost, and
> 1 drawn...Certainly Loyd cared more for brilliancy far more than for
> soundness, but whether his ideal is that of good chess is another
> question"
As so often happens, Mr. Parr seems to lack any
real perspective here.
This result, 6 wins, a draw and a bunch of losses, is
not a "poor" one -- except by grandmaster standards,
if the list of names above is any indication.
Here is what the Web site chessmetrics has for
Sam Loyd:
Best world ranking: #15
Highest CM rating: 2445
Best performance: 2477, earned in the year *1886*
Note that is well after the year mentioned above, when
SL is alleged to have "quit playing chess". And while
these ratings may not be reliable (I spotted two players
given 2300+ ratings who lost every game at N.Y., 1886),
they do seem to indicate that Mr. Loyd was a very strong
OTB player, even if he could not claim to be a title
contender.
There is a huge discrepancy betwixt Sam Loyd's fame
as a composer and his OTB skill, obviously; but this does
not make him a weak player, by any means. Some
problemists may have had a tendency to focus on the
endgame, and such skills as that would be of little use
if beaten earlier, in say the opening or middle game. In
modern play, the focus is almost entirely on the opening
stage at the grandmaster level, and it seems to me that
problemists are working in a different realm.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 05:34:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 8:04 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> Some have compared chess composition and play as similar to
> choreographed tial arts on the stage or screen to the bar brawl.
This is very good. In my experience, some OTB games
can be compared to a bar brawl, both in quality and style
of play. The outcome is not always a perfect measure
of skill, but luck plays a big role (did that bottle over the
head knock him out, or just make him angrier?).
In the movies, tial arts are often ridiculous, one
guy chops, the other blocks, the first guy kicks, the
second backs up -- as if taking turns as in chess. And
some problems are like this, pieces having been added
everywhere for no other purpose than to confuse the
issue so it will be tougher to solve, just as more
opponents are added in a scene to make the hero look
more impressive; but in reality, nobody would even try
to fight so many men without an uzi or flamethrower.
> Like all human comparisons, you can argue back and forth on the merits
> of each.
No you can't. Yes you can. Can not. Can so!
> In the end, though, it seems to me that certain players - who already
> have ELO envy of seemingly everyone around them
Ad hominem projections reveal something, but
I'm not sure what, exactly. It's like one of those
crazy chess problems where pieces are all over
the place, yet there is purported to be a forced
mate in six -- and only one!
> - are dismissive of
> problems without ever having tried the experience, or try to see why a
> series of Umnov maneuvers
Needs explanation; many readers will have no idea
what the writer is trying to say here, for Umnov is not
a famous grandmaster. Maybe this was tossed out
to try and impress somebody, but who? (Only about
four people on the whole internet may know this guy,
Umnov.)
> provide beauty and interest to a problem. I
> still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively weak
> players a sign of snobbery - who cares if they even played the game at
> all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak player?"
> Sigh.....
To GM Evans, a weak player is any player who does
not sport the letters "GM" in front of his name. What I
found amusing was the fact that when Bobby Fischer
wrote a letter in a huff over LE's published criticism of
his match "demands", instead of rebuffing the loon by
pointing out that his answer was not an endorsement
of any particular move, he just cowed down and took a
verbal lashing instead. Far from operating on any real
principles, the man seemed to go more by butt-sniffing,
by who was the alpha-dog chess player -- and by golly,
there was no question of that. But moreover, all the
letters tend to be from far lesser players, and here the
GM takes a rather arrogant tack, often as not, falling
back on his own title as support for the arrogance, as
when he proudly proclaims that he does not easily
suffer (other) fools. But getting into a huff over a few
weak players making use of Chessmaster to "cook"
his published analysis only serves to reveal who the
real fool is; what do you expect weak players to do:
write in with corrections based upon analysis which
they have "checked" by asking their chess-playing
buddies to look it over for mistakes, knowing that an
arrogant snob will ridicule them for having even dared
to try and poke holes? It boggles the mind.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:56:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 7:47 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:26 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Generally, they like to show the ones which have been
> > "cooked", meaning that somebody demonstrated that it
> > was flawed in some way. Why the obsession with
> > "cooks" is beyond me, for much of the analysis in CL,
> > for instance, can easily be "cooked".
>
> That is because a chess problem should be exact : there should be one
> key, unless more than one is intended and the analysis should be
> flawless. A mate in six should not be a mate in five or seven. Duals,
> such as multiple ending mates, tend to be intolerable. And that is one
> of the points of a chess problem: it isn't a vague "and wins" but a
> sure win or a mate or stalemate in x moves.
Yes, but by the writer showcasing problems which
have been "cooked", he focuses on the flawed, on the
inferior problems while using up valuable space which
better problems might have desired for themselves.
Maybe it's really about showing how clever the writer
is, how st he was to find the "cooks". I mean, this
is the impression I often get when reading about other
things, like chess games for instance. Or is the credit
for finding the "cooks" given to those who wrote in? In
that case, it could be a way of encouraging interest in
problem solving via recognition. This is similar to how
Larry Evans' old column used to work; readers could
send in "questions", along with corrections to faulty
published analysis and if he agreed, he might list the
person's name right along with the correction.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:43:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 7:44 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> Come on bot, you can dish it out but not take it?
If its edible, it's every man for himself. "Supersize me."
> Seriously, what is a "realistic" chess problem? Chess is by nature
> abstract, or?
A realistic chess problem is one where I could easily
fool you into thinking it is a position from one of my OTB
games.
> You probably never saw the full analysis of such problems because hack
> journalists will freely reprint chess problems and their keys, but
> rarely spend any time on the analysis required, or even reference the
> original source.
That is true; also there is the problem of limited
space in a publication like Chess Life, after allowing
for thirty-odd pages of pure advertising.
> There are a whole group of chess problems called
> "miniatures" (positions with 7 men or less) and composers still
> compose interesting ones today, with whole chess magazines devoted to
> this topic alone. Would those be "simple" enough for you? What is
> "simple"?
Well, for me a simple position would be K & p vs. K,
where I have to figure out if it is a draw or a win. (And
no fair logging on to the endgame table base Web site.)
> Seriously, all swipes aside, a few hours with one book of chess
> problem miniatures (many of which you can find for free in pdf form on
> the net) might change your mind about chess composition... if not,
> more for me.....
In the old days, many problemists made claims that
simply didn't hold up to close scrutiny (i.e. cooks). The
same thing applies to game annotations, which I find
are so full of holes that my computer sometimes can
fall on the floor, laughing. Now they have a tool called
"Freezer" which, as I have read somewhere, can cut
the board down to size so that a chess engine can
more easily handle the necessary calculations, yet the
more complex still remain part assertion, part
speculation. I find these kinds of problems to be of
little value, except perhaps for entertainment.
In studying chess as it is really played, I have found
far too many examples of flawed analysis, flawed
evaluations and flawed thinking. So maybe this is why
I am not into the artificial-looking, ultra-complex style
of chess problems. I could easily "compose" a
multitude of chess problems by altering positions from
my own games or games that I have studied, but it
just seems a bit pointless in the sense that I have an
unfair advantage as the composer; I know what the
solver cannot know, having composed it.
My idea of a chess problem is what I have so often
found in "boring" endgame books, which snatch real
positions from real games, and show how the masters
(famous grandmasters, generally speaking) mucked up a
"simple" win or draw. The fact that such a position was
not artificially composed, but arose in actual play, seems
to somehow connect the "problem" to reality, render it
more relevant to me. Others may in fact like the crazy
artificial-looking positions, but they give me the feeling of
detachment from real chess, or OTB chess.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:13:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 5:06 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > "Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
> > working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
> > Larry Evans
>
> Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
> such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov.
Some people just aren't very bright; it looks to me
as though SBD has completely misinterpreted the
above comment by GM Evans and twisted it into
some contorted shape to fit his own insecurity as a
problem solver or composer.
Here is the obvious meaning: Many famous composers
(have they earned their fame, like GM Benko, the hard way?)
were weak players (unlike me, Larry Evans, and Pal Benko)
working in isolation (i.e. they were not exposed to the stress
of tournament play, had infinite time for only this work, etc.)
who rarely competed (unlike me, Larry Evans, and PB).
What GM Evans was trying to suggest is that weak players
should not be allowed to commingle with the elite, that they
do not deserve fame, that they are a lower class than the
greats of chess, the grandmasters. He was *not* putting
down problem composition -- far from it! You have to account
for the man's, um, arrogance, in order to /get/ the true
meaning.
So you see, there was no inconsistency in GM Evans
having written this put-down and then writing about GM
Smyslov's chess compositions -- none whatever. Stop
being so insecure about your inability to compete OTB at
chess; it's only a game.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 07:44:23
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
THE TRUTH HURTS
<I still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively
weak
players a sign of snobbery -- who cares if they even played the game
at all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak
player?" Sigh..... > SBD
Dr. Dowd continues his cheap shots. What shobbery? So far Evans has
devoted two columns in Chess Life this year to great problems (in May
to Pauli Perkonoja of Finland who is virtually unknown to most fans,
and in September to Smyslov who is not known as an endgame composer}
so clearly he has celebrated their achievements.
What is a weak player? A good test is someone whose tournament results
are poor. Sam Loyd, perhaps the most famous American composer ever,
quit playing after his disastrous result at Paris in 1867.
Alain C. White in SAM LOYD AND HIS CHESS PROBLEMS writes on page 47:
"What induced Loyd to enter the International Masters' Tournament at
Paris in 1867 has always been a mystery to me. Browning has a poem
about how Dante wished to excel for once as an artist and Raphael
aspired to distinction in poetry; so it may be that Loyd, who had the
very highest fame as a problemist, desired to be known rather as a
great player. Be that as it may, he entered the Congress as
representative of America against Kolisch, Winawer, Steinitz and some
ten other masters....and his final score was only 6 won, 17 lost, and
1 drawn...Certainly Loyd cared more for brilliancy far more than for
soundness, but whether his ideal is that of good chess is another
question"
SBD wrote:
> The Value of Chess Problems
>
> As I read what bot wrote, and his emphasis on "realistic" chess
> problems, I realized what the issue was - or at least I think so.
>
> Chess is a game with a certain level of abstraction. In fact, this
> abstraction is often associated with the positive attribute of
> "abstract thought."
>
> Chess problems provide a higher level of abstraction than the game
> itself. You can interpret that negatively or positively. But I suppose
> if the idea that "learning chess teaches you certain abstractions that
> will make you better at x, y, and z," then problem chess would be seen
> as on an even higher level than the game.
>
> But just as playing chess won't make you a better general, per se, I
> understand the contention that chess problem solving or composing
> won't make you a better player. Composing a song doesn't make you a
> better musician, no matter how good the song.
>
> But I certainly have learned the full power of some of the pieces,
> like queen and bishop, by composing helpmates, something very far from
> the game of chess - a form where black and white must precisely
> cooperate to mate black.
>
> Some have compared chess composition and play as similar to
> choreographed tial arts on the stage or screen to the bar brawl.
> Like all human comparisons, you can argue back and forth on the merits
> of each.
>
> In the end, though, it seems to me that certain players - who already
> have ELO envy of seemingly everyone around them - are dismissive of
> problems without ever having tried the experience, or try to see why a
> series of Umnov maneuvers provide beauty and interest to a problem. I
> still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively weak
> players a sign of snobbery - who cares if they even played the game at
> all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak player?"
> Sigh.....
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:04:05
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
The Value of Chess Problems
As I read what bot wrote, and his emphasis on "realistic" chess
problems, I realized what the issue was - or at least I think so.
Chess is a game with a certain level of abstraction. In fact, this
abstraction is often associated with the positive attribute of
"abstract thought."
Chess problems provide a higher level of abstraction than the game
itself. You can interpret that negatively or positively. But I suppose
if the idea that "learning chess teaches you certain abstractions that
will make you better at x, y, and z," then problem chess would be seen
as on an even higher level than the game.
But just as playing chess won't make you a better general, per se, I
understand the contention that chess problem solving or composing
won't make you a better player. Composing a song doesn't make you a
better musician, no matter how good the song.
But I certainly have learned the full power of some of the pieces,
like queen and bishop, by composing helpmates, something very far from
the game of chess - a form where black and white must precisely
cooperate to mate black.
Some have compared chess composition and play as similar to
choreographed tial arts on the stage or screen to the bar brawl.
Like all human comparisons, you can argue back and forth on the merits
of each.
In the end, though, it seems to me that certain players - who already
have ELO envy of seemingly everyone around them - are dismissive of
problems without ever having tried the experience, or try to see why a
series of Umnov maneuvers provide beauty and interest to a problem. I
still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively weak
players a sign of snobbery - who cares if they even played the game at
all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak player?"
Sigh.....
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 12:47:36
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 7:26 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Generally, they like to show the ones which have been
> "cooked", meaning that somebody demonstrated that it
> was flawed in some way. Why the obsession with
> "cooks" is beyond me, for much of the analysis in CL,
> for instance, can easily be "cooked".
That is because a chess problem should be exact : there should be one
key, unless more than one is intended and the analysis should be
flawless. A mate in six should not be a mate in five or seven. Duals,
such as multiple ending mates, tend to be intolerable. And that is one
of the points of a chess problem: it isn't a vague "and wins" but a
sure win or a mate or stalemate in x moves.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 12:44:31
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 7:26 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 5:10 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps what we've learned here is that some problemists
> have very short tempers, equally small minds, and are quick
> to "defend" against criticism which is nothing more than an
> expression of personal taste. For instance, the reason I
> don't like ultra-complex, artificial-looking chess problems
> is that solving them (if I ever could) would be of very little
> value toward improving my OTB results. Compare and
> contrast to solving realistic chess problems, which can be
> highly instructive. In fact, the way I see it, the simpler the
> position, the more instructive it is likely to be.
Come on bot, you can dish it out but not take it?
Seriously, what is a "realistic" chess problem? Chess is by nature
abstract, or?
You probably never saw the full analysis of such problems because hack
journalists will freely reprint chess problems and their keys, but
rarely spend any time on the analysis required, or even reference the
original source.
There are a whole group of chess problems called
"miniatures" (positions with 7 men or less) and composers still
compose interesting ones today, with whole chess magazines devoted to
this topic alone. Would those be "simple" enough for you? What is
"simple"?
Seriously, all swipes aside, a few hours with one book of chess
problem miniatures (many of which you can find for free in pdf form on
the net) might change your mind about chess composition... if not,
more for me.....
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 12:39:09
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 7:02 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> WHAT INCONSISTENCY?
>
> > "Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
> > working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
> > Larry Evans
>
> <Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
> <such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov. -- SBD
>
> Dr. Dowd knows as well as anyone else that Smyslov's fame derives
> from his play, not his compositions. Evans clearly stated in his Chess
> Life column of September 2007: "But few fans realize that his lifelong
> passion for composing endgame studies started in 1936 when he was 15!"
Is it fame that is important Larry? Or is it the chess?
To me, there is no less joy in Smyslov's treatment of the Open Ruy
than there is in his 3 bishop promotion study. Botvinnik's little book
on the endgame ("Trousers!") is what I read, not a book that discusses
his fame or whether games were thrown to him..... or FIDE nonsense....
If some of these "famous chess people" would pay more attention to
chess than their own fame, the game might provide them the same joy it
does the real fans.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 05:33:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 5:59 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > What's this -- they did not give GM Benko a title
> > until 1995, and then misspelled his name?
>
> > "Paul Benko"??!
>
> > -- help bot
>
> They did not mis-spell his name. His name really is Paul. It is
> spelled Pal in Hungarian with a umlaut over the a as in =E4.
In my quotation above, I did not include the umlaut simply
because my keyboard doesn't have 'em. In fact, the Web
site has his name as Paul Benko with an umlaut over the o.
So if the correct spelling has umlauts over both the o and
the a, they still got it wrong. (Or maybe I am too sleepy to
remember?)
> Take a close look at the cover of my book.
Okay: it says: Winning with the Damiano's Attack,
and then underneath it has the moves 1. e4 e5,
2=2E Nf3?! f6!!, 3. Nxe5?? fxe5!!! - +
I think you must have written that before the invention
of Fritz.
> Notice the two little dots
> over the letter a.
O k a y. I am seeing dots... over the letter a...
> That is the correct spelling of his name.
Now I am feeling sleepy, very sleepy. The dots...
over the letter a... .
-- he:lp bo:t
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 05:26:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 5:10 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:47 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Many problemists created positions which bear
> > almost no resemblance to real-world chess play,
> > while others proclaimed a mate-in-257-moves with
> > absolutely no way to back it up. (Me, I have trouble
> > seeing more than about a hundred-fifty moves ahead,
> > unless it's just Queens or Rooks on the board).
>
> Maybe that is why you don't see any way to back it up. Sometimes
> composers spend years doing the gritty analysis for such problems, and
> they can "back it up."
Funny I never saw one of those kind published.
Generally, they like to show the ones which have been
"cooked", meaning that somebody demonstrated that it
was flawed in some way. Why the obsession with
"cooks" is beyond me, for much of the analysis in CL,
for instance, can easily be "cooked".
> I've seen long problems often accompanied with
> 20-30 pages of analysis
I've seen a single paragraph of analysis which contained
many errors, so that would be quite a bit more work to plow
through. The best sort of analysis is the kind which says
that White wins by penetrating his King to square x, then
maneuvering piece y to square z, whereupon Black is
zugzwanged. (And of course, where he actually can do
all that!)
> or the length of one of your favorite comic
> books
X-men!? Flash?!!
> or is that "graphic novel?")
I don't actually like comic books; they jump from one
"frame" to the next, creating a herky-jerky effect. Now
cartoons are a definite step up, but movies are the best.
Preferably color movies... with sound.
> There are more things in chess,
> helpbot, than you apparently have room for in your "philosophy."
Perhaps what we've learned here is that some problemists
have very short tempers, equally small minds, and are quick
to "defend" against criticism which is nothing more than an
expression of personal taste. For instance, the reason I
don't like ultra-complex, artificial-looking chess problems
is that solving them (if I ever could) would be of very little
value toward improving my OTB results. Compare and
contrast to solving realistic chess problems, which can be
highly instructive. In fact, the way I see it, the simpler the
position, the more instructive it is likely to be.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 05:02:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
WHAT INCONSISTENCY?
> "Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
> working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
> Larry Evans
<Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
<such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov. -- SBD
Dr. Dowd knows as well as anyone else that Smyslov's fame derives
from his play, not his compositions. Evans clearly stated in his Chess
Life column of September 2007: "But few fans realize that his lifelong
passion for composing endgame studies started in 1936 when he was 15!"
SBD wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > "Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
> > working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
> > Larry Evans
>
> Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
> such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov.
>
> Chess composition is a fascinating world and those, like helpbot, who
> don't partake - I figure it is just more for me. Anyone who can't
> appreciate problems such as Hans Vetter's effort in a 1975 Schach
> Echo:
>
> FEN: 8/1pR5/pP6/8/PpB5/kPp5/2P5/1K6 w - - 0 1 #5 R sac, B sac,
> Phoenix.
>
> let them fester in their little world of "practical" chess. As to me,
> I like all forms of chess - not just one person's stylized version.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 03:59:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 6:26 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > What are the titles for endgame composition, and
> > > who doles them out?
>
> > Organization is FIDE for Chess Compositions:http://www.saunalahti.fi/~s=
tniekat/pccc/general.htm
>
> What's this -- they did not give GM Benko a title
> until 1995, and then misspelled his name?
>
> "Paul Benko"??!
>
> -- help bot
They did not mis-spell his name. His name really is Paul. It is
spelled Pal in Hungarian with a umlaut over the a as in =E4.
Take a close look at the cover of my book. Notice the two little dots
over the letter a. That is the correct spelling of his name.
http://www.samsloan.com/palbenko.htm
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:32:45
From: MaciLaci
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
samsloan �rta:
> On Oct 7, 6:26 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 3:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> What are the titles for endgame composition, and
>>>> who doles them out?
>>> Organization is FIDE for Chess Compositions:http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/general.htm
>> What's this -- they did not give GM Benko a title
>> until 1995, and then misspelled his name?
>>
>> "Paul Benko"??!
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> They did not mis-spell his name. His name really is Paul. It is
> spelled Pal in Hungarian with a umlaut over the a as in �.
>
> Take a close look at the cover of my book. Notice the two little dots
> over the letter a. That is the correct spelling of his name.
>
In Hungarian there's an accent on the 'a': P�l. That is the correct
spelling of his name.
> http://www.samsloan.com/palbenko.htm
>
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 03:26:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 3:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > What are the titles for endgame composition, and
> > who doles them out?
>
> Organization is FIDE for Chess Compositions:http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/general.htm
What's this -- they did not give GM Benko a title
until 1995, and then misspelled his name?
"Paul Benko"??!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 10:10:25
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 2:47 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Many problemists created positions which bear
> almost no resemblance to real-world chess play,
> while others proclaimed a mate-in-257-moves with
> absolutely no way to back it up. (Me, I have trouble
> seeing more than about a hundred-fifty moves ahead,
> unless it's just Queens or Rooks on the board).
Maybe that is why you don't see any way to back it up. Sometimes
composers spend years doing the gritty analysis for such problems, and
they can "back it up." I've seen long problems often accompanied with
20-30 pages of analysis, or the length of one of your favorite comic
books (or is that "graphic novel?")There are more things in chess,
helpbot, than you apparently have room for in your "philosophy."
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 10:06:29
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 1:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> "Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
> working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
> Larry Evans
Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov.
Chess composition is a fascinating world and those, like helpbot, who
don't partake - I figure it is just more for me. Anyone who can't
appreciate problems such as Hans Vetter's effort in a 1975 Schach
Echo:
FEN: 8/1pR5/pP6/8/PpB5/kPp5/2P5/1K6 w - - 0 1 #5 R sac, B sac,
Phoenix.
let them fester in their little world of "practical" chess. As to me,
I like all forms of chess - not just one person's stylized version.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:15:47
From:
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 3:47 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > In addition to the GM title, Benko also has an IM title for Chess
> > Composition, which makes for an impressive combination of credentials.
>
> What are the titles for endgame composition, and
> who doles them out?
>
Organization is FIDE for Chess Compositions:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/general.htm
Titles for composer and solvers:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/titles.htm
"Theoretical and tactical endgames -- the majority of which are known
as studies -- are fascinating and every player should devote all of
his life to them, or at least as much of it as he can spare..." -
Jacob Aagaard
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 00:47:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 7, 1:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> In addition the the GM title, Benko also has an IM title for Chess
> Composition, which makes for an impressive combination of credentials.
What are the titles for endgame composition, and
who doles them out?
Much of what I have seen over the years related to
a relative few composers, whose prolific work is just
repeated, over and over. One such fellow, I suppose,
was named Mr. Cook, as in "I cooked Benko's 207th
endgame problem, by finding a duplicate solution".
Many problemists created positions which bear
almost no resemblance to real-world chess play,
while others proclaimed a mate-in-257-moves with
absolutely no way to back it up. (Me, I have trouble
seeing more than about a hundred-fifty moves ahead,
unless it's just Queens or Rooks on the board).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:26:56
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
[ dropped r.g.c.politics ]
help bot wrote:
> What are the titles for endgame composition, and
> who doles them out?
'Doles out' ... FIDE has a Permanent Commission for Chess
Composition, which handles titles for composers as well
as solvers.
Earning a composition title requires that a certain
number of already published compositions submitted for
publication in the FIDE Album must have been accepted by
the Album editors.
However, not all fine composers send in their work, so the
field is not quite level.
> Many problemists created positions which bear
> almost no resemblance to real-world chess play,
> while others proclaimed a mate-in-257-moves with
> absolutely no way to back it up.
Chess endgame composition is not always related to real-world chess play:
it's more about those special cases and exceptions that
did not happen OTB or only appears in positions few good
chess-players would find themselves in (think of the Troitzky line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knights_endgame#Troitzky_line )
Chess problem composition is even further
remote from 'real-world chess', much like any art tends
to abstract reality. Just think of 'Nude descending
a staircase' or 'Guernica'.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:31:22
From:
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
> On Oct 7, 1:41 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 2:19 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > and is now the world's
> > leading authority on chess endgames.
>
> Er, right. GM Benko has his column at Chess Life,
> but that is hardly the same thing as being the world's
> leading authority (as if anyone were) on the endgame.
>
In addition the the GM title, Benko also has an IM title for Chess
Composition, which makes for an impressive combination of credentials.
"Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
Larry Evans
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:41:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory can now be ordered online
|
On Oct 6, 2:19 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> http://www.samsloan.com/palbenko.htm
>
> Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory
>
> Pal Benko is one of the world's leading grandmasters of chess.
PB *was* one of the world's leading grandmasters of
chess. Today, his rating is around 2400 or so.
> He was
> once ranked in the top ten players in the world
After noting the boo-boo at top, I tried to check this at
both the FIDE and USCF Web sites, but to no avail.
Heck, I don't know if FIDE even had rankings back when
GM Benko was at his peak.
Here is what chessmetrics has for GM Benko:
Best world ranking: #17
Highest CM rating: 2687
Best performance: 2724 (at the Stockholm Interzonal, 1962)
Chessmetrics shows three 2700+ performances for GM
Benko (and whaddayaknow -- in every one another strong
American player was present at the scene. No, it wasn't
Sam Sloan. I mean *really* strong!)
> and is now the world's
> leading authority on chess endgames.
Er, right. GM Benko has his column at Chess Life,
but that is hardly the same thing as being the world's
leading authority (as if anyone were) on the endgame.
Some monster endgame manuals were probably
written in Russian or German and not translated into
English, so folks like SS will pretend they don't exist.
(Offhand, there are books by GMs Smyslov and
Averbakh which are far more substantive.)
> This book contains 72 of his endgame columns which were originally
> published in Chess Life magazine.
>
> Everybody who has seen this book likes it, including, most
> importantly, Pal Benko himself.
This book (or its predecessor) got rave reviews:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_chess_endgame_lessons.html
The review by John Watson was equally enthusiastic,
but it should be noted that neither of these reviews
even remotely resembles one of their "normal" critical
book reviews in which an authors' openings analysis
is actually examined for quality. It seems these guys
won't touch the endgame with a ten foot pole! (I have
rarely seen reviews on the IM Silman site so short, so
shallow.)
There is also a thick/expensive autobiography by
GM Benko, covering a much wider range of topics.
But the compilation of Chess Life columns will make
for much easier reading. JS: What book would you
want to have on a desert island? Dr. Nunn: How to
Build a Boat. That aside... JS said he would like to
have this book by GM Benko.
-- help bot
|
|
