Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:58:12 10/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2002 at 19:23:30, martin fierz wrote: >On October 12, 2002 at 15:18:28, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>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 ). > >otello, i am not saying nice sacs are not satisfactory. i am saying that weak >players are (often) unable to appreciate beatiful positional/endgame wins. BTW, >i have another anecdote for you: kasparov played in a tournament once, and >played what he thought was a perfect game in one round. unfortunately, another >player in that tournament sacced his queen for a mate in 5. and won the >brilliancy prize of the round. so what did kasparov do? did he congratulate the >other player? no way! he got mad and said that the jury (which i think was just >the spectators) knew nothing about chess, and that the combination had been >obvious, while his win was deep and subtle. sound familiar? Kasparov was not polite. beauty prize does not mean a prize for moves that are the most hard to find so the fact that kasparov's win was deep and subtle does not mean that it deserved the beauty prize. In composition problems that are obvious to solve are not going to win first prize but the problem that can win the first prize is not the problem that is the hardest to solve. The fact that a problem is hard to solve is an advantage but it is clearly not the only reason to decide if to give it the first prize. Uri
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.