Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 12:18:28 10/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2002 at 14:47:00, martin fierz wrote: >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. I think that the "evergreen" game or the "immortal" game impress any categories of player ( also if I must admit that nowadays such masterpieces are always more rare). And your theory is not so easily generalizable since as you admit to appreciate a beatiful combination or an amazing sacrifice as much as weaker player of you. >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 :-) > For what concern the understanding what you say isn't completely true since nowadays you can analyze a game with the help of powerful tools (guess which ?) or just reading the comments of a qualified GM explaining the subtleties of the position also to our "mere" mortals.... >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. Come on Martin, to see an amazing sacrifice is satisfactory at all levels...and is usually awarded with beauty prize (... at least in my country ). w.b.r. Otello
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.