Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:56:54 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 16:47:42, martin fierz wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 16:30:33, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On October 11, 2002 at 16:15:21, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>That is exactly what is missing in those games just seen in the match >>>Kramnik-DF... "the chess beauty" ! >> >>Game #2 was a fantastic game in my opinion. You seem to apply that "chess >>beauty" is equal to incredible queen sacs and whatnot. >> >>Sargon > >i have often noticed that what people find beautiful in chess depends on their >understanding of chess. to somebody who plays no chess at all, nothing is >beautiful. to weak players, a queen sac forcing a mate in 2 is beautiful. to >average players, a classic like Bxh7+ Kxh7 Qh5+ Kg8 Ng5 and mate in all forms is >beautiful. for strong players, there is no beauty there - it's just routine. >i have noticed that the stronger i got at chess, the more i could appreciate >other forms of chess beauty. most of the 1600 hacks who post here can't enjoy >those DF-kramnik games as much as i do. hmm, instead of complaining they should >work on their chess :-) > >there's a nice anecdote on this thing: kasparov was once on german TV and they >asked him about such a Bxh7 position - i'm not sure if he could see the board or >not, i think not. it was a forced mate in 8. they wanted to show the viewers who >knew nothing about chess that kasparov would see a mate in 8 in a split second, >blindfolded. but he didnt! he was confused, and didnt give the solution in a >second like anticipated. what happened? he thought: it was an obvious mate in 8 >- how could they ask him to solve something as trivial as that? so he just >refused to answer IIRC. 99 of 100 chess players would be glad to find a >beautiful combination, but kasparov was insulted by it :-) When I did my first IQ test in psychology after my studies in maths I found certain errors in the mathematical parts and I made some notes before I continued with the test. The error was so obvious that I thought that I could be of great help for the department and I spend no thoughts on the disadvantages by doing this second job. This was a consequence of my reserved position to the IQ concept as such. More important than the mere number are distribution of the results in different parts and belonging to greater intervals. In some other situations, in special as a patient in medical situations, I had bad experiences because own thinking is mostly regarded as disturbance. We could say that the more authoritative someone is the less well he could handle such "disturbances". While smart persons can't get enough of such thoughts and inspirations. Let me just repeat something from chess masters what I had published in rgcc and misc. When Karpov had to play certain IM or weak GM he was willing to play into the domain variation of that opponent, just because he wanted to fight the newest discoveries. So, I hope, many people here might understand that class means obligations. This is what Kramnik demonstrated in game two and three. I'm not sure if we could expect some more, even for 1 million $. Kramnik will also read the whining and the lack of respect (his remark on 12-Bf8). Almost all GM are happy if they meat some player with something interesting. Never met arrogant GM! - - Rolf Tueschen > >aloha > martin
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.