Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 21:01:31 01/19/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2006 at 13:53:27, Chrilly Donninger wrote: >On January 18, 2006 at 06:42:50, Sune Larsson wrote: > >>From an article on the CB-site: >> >>Who is the strongest player in the world right now? Perhaps it is still >>Kasparov, despite having recently left the stage? >> >>"There is no such a thing as the “stronger player”. No one understands chess as >>it is, there is simply a will to reach the highest possible result. Actually, >>Kasparov doesn’t understand anything in chess. And personally I don’t give a >>damn what he is occupied with, he only exists on tournament score sheets. His >>other endeavors do not interest me." >> >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2874 >> >>/S >Amateur is a Latin word and means "Lover". Only an amateur loves his >occupation/hobby. For a professional its work like any other work. Well, I know >a lot of jobs, which are worse than computer-chess programming or chess-playing. >But its nevertheless work. E.g. I have stopped chess playing, when I become >computer-chess-professional. After watching all the day engine-matches, there is >one thing I am not interested in the evening: Chess. >I think Moro is also right, that there is no relation in chess between effort >and money. The Hydra chess expert GM Lutz plays on the first board of the German >top team "Porz". He earns the same amount than a top player in the local >football team. The slight difference: The soccer team plays in the lowest league >of the Austrian competition. Nobody would consider these players as >professional. They just get some small extra money to their normal job. > >Thats also one problem we have in the Hydra team. Adams could win 25.000$ if he >wins a game for Hydra. But this is in modern sports no money. Beckham gets the >same for kicking one corner. Money is the measure of importance in this world. >Something is by definition important, if a lot of money is involved. > >Moro is also right, that chess is a boring game. Actually computer chess is even >more boring. It is fascinating like watching paint dry. > >Chrilly The reason it is boring, other than expertise and much time spent with it, which can make anything boring, is because modern masters and money have turned it into a game where people take no real chances. Everybody is so hell-bent on preserving equilibrium looking for Tarrasch's "minor improvements" in order to salvage the honor of a draw, that they have forgot what chess once was. My old teacher, Richard Shorman, of Hayward, CA, US, lamented this fact and in all his students instilled a joy of chess beginning with Morphy, then Capablanca, then Tal. My later teacher, Jeremy Silman of Beverly Hills, CA considered it all in a day's work. Out of Shorman's approach I retain the joy for chess on a daily basis. Tal, Kasparov, Fischer, Alekhine -- these are the great names. To me, an "unsound" sacrifice is more interesting then a perfect Petrosian squeeze any day of the week. Make chess exciting and start playing to toss up the equilibrium. By forcing your opponent into unfamiliar territory, you will be surprised at how poor most humans are at defensive play (a great advantage of computers), because we are emotional. Toss it up some man! Stuart
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.