< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 192 OF 192 ·
|Mar-16-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Itís often said that if Morphy was given some time to learn modern openings he would beat most of todayís top players, Fischer himself meant that Morphy would beat everyone. I think the knowledge of modern players is underestimated, just look at how they can blitz out complicated middlegames and endgames while blindfolded.>|
I have been watching the Amber blindfold tournament. I learned that in Amber they actually have boards (although empty) to look at. That makes blindfold games much easier by a mile IMO.
Blindfold chess today is mostly for fun. However, I think almost all the top masters of the 19th century until the 1930s depended partially on professional fees from simultaneous blindfold chess exhibitions without sight of board and men. They had to take blindfold chess very seriously as part of their income depended on it. Since it was their livelihood, and they did it regularly, these pre-WW2 masters would probably be super strong in blindfold chess by today's standards. Including Paul Morphy by the way.
If we were to get the strongest blindfold players in history, I would bet on Alekhine; he was regularly playing blindfold chess in a professional capacity until the end of his career, without sight of board and men. His experience in playing blindfold chess was an order of magnitude greater than today's top GMs.
As for openings, it's pretty well-known that blindfold chess and rapid games depend more on a chess player's native skills than on opening knowledge.
|Mar-16-09|| ||frogbert: <His experience in playing blindfold chess was an order of magnitude greater than today's top GMs.>|
mimicking the way you argue regarding opening theory and all other advances & changes in modern chess, i guess we could give today's top gms 3 months of intensive blindfold training - and they'd match "the strongest blindfold player in history", right? or was that changed to 2-3 years of training in the latest estimates?
ps! lengthy arguments about "historical players" versus modern players are mostly futile, imho. there is no way to reasonably compare them. not even in terms of relative domination, due to the huge increase in professional (or semi-professional) players over the years.
|Mar-16-09|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> Note, historical masters didn't play blindfold against each other but against <amateurs> (and it were not always simuls!). They didn't have to calculate much, just keep the position in their head and calculate at the "critical" moments (f.x. to announce checkmate in x moves).|
|Mar-16-09|| ||alexmagnus: <frogbert> But how do you refute my "continuity of time" argument, connecting the different player pools?|
|Mar-16-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus> Still trolling along? Why don't you try playing simultaneous blindfold chess with 10 people, with no board? A normal chessplayer might get a headache playing a single game without a chess board, but you probably won't as you don't seem to have have enough stuff inside your trollish skull to get a headache. Certainly statements such as this speak for themselves, of just about how much calculative powers their creators have.|
<They didn't have to calculate much, just keep the position in their head and calculate at the "critical" moments (f.x. to announce checkmate in x moves). - alexmagnus>
And yes, the pre-WW 2 masters played each other blindfold. They would even play mini-matches with each other. Try visiting the Mieses page for one such blindfold match.
|Mar-16-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <i guess we could give today's top gms 3 months of intensive blindfold training - and they'd match "the strongest blindfold player in history", right? or was that changed to 2-3 years of training in the latest estimates?>|
You are probably being ironic <frogbert>, but if you are asking a serious question, you could well be correct.
<lengthy arguments about "historical players" versus modern players are mostly futile, imho.>
There are many like you who think so; and certainly, since time machines are not available, masters from different eras would never meet. It's like comparing Newton and Einstein. However, other chess pundits don't think it's futile. So in this case, it's really a matter of opinion. <amadeus> betting on a disguised moustached Morphy beating Grischuk for example may sound futile to you, but for me, it brought a smile, and thoughts of, hey if <amadeus> is right, GM Grischuk would never know what hit him. (",)
<the huge increase in professional (or semi-professional) players over the years.>
The chess players of the former Soviet Union and its former satellite countries (Eastern European block) were supported by the state (either directly or via state-sponsored tournaments); which in my mind makes them professional players, who could concentrate on chess and nothing else much, without worrying where to get an income to buy their daily bread. And it's probably why Soviet masters began to grow in strength starting in the 1920s very quickly; and have totally dominated the chessworld until the 1990s. In this context, Paul Keres before WW2 would have been a chess professional in the present-day sense; he would play in tournaments for the prize money. Post WW2, Keres remained a chess professional in the sense that he was supported by the Soviet state.
We are still living in the post-Soviet aftermath: we still see chessplayers like Kramnik, Topalov, Morozevich, Leko, Shirov, etc.. who were trained in the Eastern European block chess system. The strongest products of this very professional Soviet - Eastern European system were Kasparov and Karpov; and so were World Champions Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky; and near champions Bronstein and Korchnoi. These players in their prime IMO are a match for any other top player from any era in chess history.
Regarding the capacity of the very top chessplayers to play chess, my views are in my profile.
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: <Still trolling along? Why don't you try playing simultaneous blindfold chess with 10 people, with no board? A normal chessplayer might get a headache playing a single game without a chess board, but you probably won't as you don't seem to have have enough stuff inside your trollish skull to get a headache. >|
I actually once <played> two blindfold games simultaneously. The opponents were of course extremely weak (I myself am 1500, my opponents were one absolute beginner and one 900). I won both games, but I bet any 1200 would trash me (if he sees the board and I play blind).
So if a 1500 can play 2 games blind, I see nopthing special in a 2600 playing 10 games blind against amateurs who hardly play better than myself...
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: And just for clarification - yes, I have a very good memory (my limit in momentarily number memorization is, depending on the day, between 13 and 15 digits - an average human has 6-7). But far from a photographical one.|
So I think is with that masters. They may have an exceptional memory, but I am <sure> it's not photographic. It may be synaesthetic though. Memory is always better with synaesthesia....
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: Also, <visayan>, you should read a definition of the troll. Also, you hardly win an argument by attacking me. Remember, I debated competitively in my teens, I know that attacks give you no points.|
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: Aaand also, from my owwn experience... I played a semi-blind game (notation allowed for me, completely blind for him) against a 2000 once. It was <much> harder than that blind simul against beginners. And - I lost just as I would lose in a normal game.|
|Mar-17-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: The funny thing about you <alexmagnus> is that you are one of the trolls who try to deny they are trolling. You have been trolling my posts since the Kramnik page; and I have warned you already that I troll trolls like you.|
By the way, I can help you think of a way to create a system wherein you can be the blindfold Chess World Champion of the world.
I can also give you pointers on trolling if you want to improve your trolling skills to a level as blind as your blindfold skills.
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> I don't troll. While you yourself say you ARE trolling.|
Not everybody whose opinion differs from yours is a troll!
You siply have no arguments to refute me and so say I a troll. Go ahead, look up the definition of a troll.
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: simply*; I'm*... Sorry, my M and E are sometimes not working ;)|
|Mar-17-09|| ||whiteshark: * <alxagnus> ayb you should buy a nw kyboard so..ti..s!|
|Mar-17-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Troll = Someone who has 450 cc of brain volume in his skull = <alexmagnus>|
|Mar-17-09|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> LOL. Your attacks start going below the waist line. But before you calculate my brain volume, remember that I studied two grades ahead of my age through the entire secondary school ;)|
|Mar-17-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus> Do trolls have waistlines?|
You asked for a definition of a troll did you not? Is increasing the brain volume acceptable to you?
Troll = Someone who has 800 cc of brain volume in his skull = <alexmagnus>
|Mar-18-09|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> Stop trolling. You know, I'm not a troll. If I wanted to troll I'd do it somewhere else since chess players are not a category easily misled by trolling. But I don't troll and don't want to. I just see no sense in trolling.|
By the way, definition. I didn't ask you for the difinition, I asked you too look up the dictionary definition ;)
|Mar-18-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Definition of a troll:
Begins his posts with:
<I am not a troll. I am not a troll. I am not a troll.>
Fills the middle of his posts with:
<What is the dictionary definition of a troll? What is the dictionary definition of a troll? What is the dictionary definition of a troll?>
<Here are my credentials, look how smart I am. Here are my credentials, look how smart I am. Here are my credentials, look how smart I am.>
Ends his posts with:
<;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)>
What can I say but:
(",) (",) (",) (",) (",) (",) (",)
|Mar-18-09|| ||alexmagnus: <visayan> You get the title <discussion killer of the millenium>.|
|Mar-18-09|| ||alexmagnus: But don't worry, I won't sue you for the murder on this discussion|
|Apr-11-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: <Mrs. Alekhine: Why wasn't my husband invited? >|
The more I read your entries, the more they make me laugh.
|Apr-17-09|| ||Raisin Death Ray: The End?|
|Aug-29-09|| ||Raisin Death Ray: I guess so!|
|Jul-25-13|| ||Xeroxx: Maybe.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 192 OF 192 ·