|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-28-11 | | Troller: Has anyone tried examining any Russian sources? It seems all cited documentation comes from British or American chess periodicals which, trustworthy as they may be, are quite far removed from the issues at hand. Italian, German, French etc would be just as relevant; they should be taken into account as well, if one insists on citing English-languaged sources. To my ind, no thorough analysis of the 1948 tournament is possible without knowledge of Russian. As for the retrieval of primary sources, yes, this is problematic. But most sources on such old issues can actually be dug out today if one wants to. There are plenty of examples; e.g. Soviet military invasion plans of Western Europe are now documented - if this is public, I doubt that chess-politics of the 1940s would be problematic, main issue is if the sources still exist. This is not to say that Taylor Kingston's conclusions are necessarily wrong, but as a historian I cannot take historical research all too seriously if it does not use primary sources whenever available. Of course Najdorf should have been there; but apart from the Argentinian chess federation (who?) obviously no-one was interested in another contestant. |
 |
Apr-28-11
 | | HeMateMe: Isn't there a relatively new book out, with a title something like "Chess and the KGB"? I think its premise is bringing to light some previously hidden records regarding chess and the Soviet Union in the 20th century. |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | wordfunph: <HMM> The KGB Plays Chess.. http://www.amazon.com/KGB-Plays-Che... |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | drnooo: It even makes more sense, in classical chess, let's say if yo want a decent tiebreak format, hell, let them play random, very few games are going to end in a tie, its a test of classical skill, without opening memorization, whereas the skills in rapids definitely are not even close often to classical, and random almost guarantees a non tie result. |
|
Apr-28-11
 | | Peligroso Patzer: Here is a link to the page for the semifinals and finals: US Championship (Knock-Out) (2011) |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | James Bowman: Did Botvinnik or Alekhine win the 2011 US open? |
|
Apr-29-11
 | | perfidious: <James Bowman: Did Botvinnik or Alekhine win the 2011 US open?> Capablanca won it, of course! |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | kramputz: (Apr-28-11 James Bowman: ) You must change your medication or stay off the weed |
|
Apr-29-11
 | | kingfu: Re: Fine
Psychology pays more than Chess. Although, he missed his biggest opportunity. He could have been as big as Freud if he had kept Fischer as a client!!!! Botvinnik and Tal. Smoking and drinking REAL VODKA and playing Chess. CHESS does not and can not get any better. Is there a bar at The Moscow Central Chess Club? |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | ddaniell: does anyone know why naka isnt playing? |
|
Apr-29-11
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: After winning Tata Steel, Nakamura wants to focus only on elite events. |
|
Apr-29-11
 | | paulalbert: With respect to Naka not playing, criticized by many, in one of Kasparov's calls in to commentators Maurice Ashley and Jennifer Shahade, Kasparov indicated that he felt Naka was making the right decision to focus on the elite competitions if he wanted to advance further. |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | Kanatahodets: Bowman's right; Alekhine or Botvinnik are totally irrelevant to US 2011. As for Naka's decision; he is absolutely right. Either US becomes a really strong event with say Anand and Kramnik invited, or best US players like Naka and Fabiano will ignore this championship. I'm wondering why Gata participates, or he is already gave up? |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | Kanatahodets: With all due respect to players most of them have already passed their peak. Naka has a great chance to be permanently in top 5: Magnus, Vishy, Aronian, Naka, Topa. |
|
Apr-29-11
| | paulalbert: Gata said the right things during his winner's interview: "maintaining prestige of U.S. Championship" ,"ideal conditions of St. Louis club", etc. Chance at $40,000 certainly a pretty good incentive also. It turned out to be a reasonable way to maintain a playing edge in preparation for Topalov without having to reveal any opening preparation. |
|
Apr-29-11
 | | MaxxLange: <paulalbert> in the victor's interview, Maurice and Jen asked Kamsky about Nakamura not playing. I liked his answer, it was honest and reasonable. In my paraphrase, Kamsky said: sure, it's disappointing, and I would have liked to see Nakamura play. But, I understand his choice, and I respect that he has to do what he think is best for his chess career at this time. |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | James Bowman: < kramputz: (Apr-28-11 James Bowman: ) You must change your medication or stay off the weed>
Sorry I thought my sarcasim and the patent simplicity of my point couldn't be missed yet you managed. Besides my THC receptors are non functional anyway. <Kanatahhodents> Thanks! I do feel that Nakamura should have played for the benefit of U.S. chess. it seems that it would have impacted him in a small way as he wouldn't have needed to train for it, and no expenses or traveling were required. That said certainly the primary issue is that it was Nakamura's decision not mine and while I missed his play it's not really critical either way IMHO. Congrats to Kamsky a worthy champ, good luck vs Topolov. I must add Shankland and Hess put on a good show, glad Sam didn't abandon chess he is advancing rapidly and my only regret for him is that he didn't have enough confidence to press Kamsky when he was a piece vs. a pawn up, glad Kasparov said it too. This was deleted and edited for clarity so it will appear out of sequence sorry. |
|
May-03-11
| | kingfu: I thought History , social History, military History , political History consisted of standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before you. I think Bowman could be more gracious to our Chess History. |
|
| May-05-11 | | James Bowman: <I think Bowman could be more gracious to our Chess History> In what way was I not gracious to our chess HIStory? I simply thought a multi page discussions about champions from another era on a page about a current event was out of place. I happen to be a fan of the former greats including Botvinik and Alekhine and do occasionaly engage in lengthy discussions on THIER pages. No ingratitude what so ever. I do hope I haven't slighted HIStory at large either, certainly wasn't my intent <kingfu>. |
|
May-09-11
| | kingfu: I apologize.
I misunderstood. We do love Alekhine and Lasker and Botvinnik. But the current Championship should be discussed in terms of NOW. Quite right, James Bowman. Thank you. |
|
| May-10-11 | | James Bowman: Apology accepted, no hard feelings it's not like it was a felony just a misdemeanor really ;o]> |
|
May-11-11
| | kingfu: In another life I would be known as Felonious Monk!
It seems as if , in the Candidates Tournament, everyone is playing Not to lose. I suppose I would , too, if I maybe could win a chance to be Champion. |
|
| Sep-26-11 | | King of Nothing: < FSR: Najdorf should have been invited in 1948 - especially after Fine declined.> I think so too and wondered why he wasn't. My guess is that the Soviets had a lot of pull after the war, inside FIDE. |
|
Sep-27-11
| | MaxxLange: you guessed right, this event was all run by KGB, on behalf of Comrade Stalin Najdorf was un-welcome, to these....gentlemen..... in that he was a possible focal point for Polish nationalism |
|
Sep-27-11
 | | waustad: <JB> You aren't by any chance a countertenor are you? Looking up the name I found several other famous ones, so that seems unlikely. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
