Author: martin fierz
Date: 11:47:00 10/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2002 at 12:45:47, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 17:37:37, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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 :-) >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >> >>LOL! But point well taken! > >Hi Terry, >Martin just wanted show us his undeniable superiority in chess (...showing also >a bit of arrogance ), that's not what i wanted to show. i wanted to tell you that there is a very clear correlation between what players find beautiful in chess, and their playing strength. as to the arrogance part, yes, there are many things about chess a 1600 player does not understand and cannot appreciate. you may or may not like that statement but it's true. the same goes for every elo number you care to put in that sentence of course :-) >but I'm not completely convinced that he doesn't >appreciate the beauty of a combination or an amazing sacrifice, and naturally i appreciate the beauty of a combination! it's just that many combinations which are beautiful for a 1600 player are trivial for a 2200 player like me (and many combinations which are beautiful for me are trivial for a titled player...). so an "amazing sacrifice" is beautiful to anybody who is amazed by it - while those who just see it at a glance will not find it particularly beautiful. do your remember the time when you started playing chess? for me, at the time, if i could fork a king and queen with a knight, that was an Event with a capital E. now it is just a huge blunder of my opponent... 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.