< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 15 ·
|Apr-18-12|| ||JohnDahl: <The French coalition had the wrong kind of horses for winter war>|
Less the wrong horses, more the wrong horseshoes.
<Solzhenitsy focuses on the incompetence and corruption among the ruling class and the military leaders, which leads from one disaster to another.>
Recently watched Kubrick's <Paths of Glory>. Good film but heavy-handed; the <lions lead by donkeys> message was already cliched by the end of WW1.
|Apr-18-12|| ||Famfrenzy: aronian always finds it difficult against positional style players like carlsen and kramnik....,expecting a great match up|
|Apr-18-12|| ||HeMateMe: That's true; the horses of the French coalition were not shod properly for the type of terrain they would have to traverse. Also,the Russians had a different type of horse, a smaller, animal that was able to forage in the steeps and winter areas for food. The french horses, larger stallions, had to be fed by hay brought to them by wagons. It became impossible to provision both the horse and the huge army.
This would be like trying to wage modern war without gasoline for tanks and artillery. |
Not having horses also make Napoleon impotent against the Russians cavalry. In this, Tolstoy is correct, the horsement of the steppes are great riders and fighters.
The Russian army simply shadowed the French group, as they slowly disintegrated by starvation and disease. Contrary to myth, there are no decisive battles between Napoleon and his Russian counterparts on the march back from Moscow, just skirmishes and raids, by the better horse mounted troops of Russia.
Supposedly the Russian generals were angry they were not allowed to engage Napoleon more thoroughly, especially as he approached Moscow, but the aristocratic Russian (Prince Phillip?) chosen to lead the defense wisely decided to wait, and let the French disintegrate.
|Apr-18-12|| ||Bishoprick: AVRO38, while I certainly enjoyed "The Brother Karamasov" (I must have since I read it three times!),I think your comment about it being the supreme literary achievement is over the top. I believe that honor belongs to several of Shakespeare's plays. Among the Russians, I think that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" surpasses "The Brotthers K."|
|Apr-18-12|| ||HeMateMe: I went to a chess match, and a literary debate broke out!|
|Apr-18-12|| ||AVRO38: <Among the Russians, I think that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" surpasses "The Brotthers K.">|
Few people understand The Brothers Karamazov, those that do are in awe.
For the common man, it's just a long story about a dysfunctional family. But for the more enlightened among us, it's something much, much more!
As for the match, I'm hoping that Kramnik learned his lesson in the last Candidates and now realizes that playing 8 move draws in a short match is borderline psychotic. I hope to see a sharp and exciting match.
|Apr-18-12|| ||Sokrates: <For the common man, it's just a long story about a dysfunctional family. But for the more enlightened among us, it's something much, much more!> What a brilliant argumentation! And the modesty behind it! I'm painfully aware that even with my MA in literature I shall never reach the crystal heaven of such enlightenment. I shall humbly stick to chess comments henceforth.|
|Apr-18-12|| ||stst: <I shall humbly stick to chess comments henceforth.>
Yes and No.
Yes:Chess is so good that you can just talk about it, play with it, enjoy only it, etc. No other stuff involved, period.
No:Chess is also so good that one can easily link it with literature, philosophy, science, math, even engineering, etc etc. No period here then.
|Apr-19-12|| ||Elo: Why is this called the "Kramnik vs. Aronian Match" and not the "Aronian vs. Kramnik Match"?|
Aronian is higher rated, the objective favorite to win the match, and "A" comes before "K". For what possible reason did CG list Kramnik first?
|Apr-19-12|| ||Blunderdome: <Elo> If you go to the homepage for the match, it's called "Zurich Chess Challenge: Kramnik vs. Aronian." So it's not CG but the organizers who named it that way. It's possible Vlad asked to have his name first when they negotiated the contract, or the organizers may have just done it that way because Kramnik is a former World Champion.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||Paraconti: Aronian to win by 4-2 via 1=10=1|
|Apr-19-12|| ||Elo: <Blunderdome> Thanks for clearing that up.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||shach matov: <Sokrates: But generally, I have not the slightest doubt that the merits of GK by far exceeds the ditto of VK. Their results are not even comparable - only Fischer and Karpov can compete with Garry. VK's access to the WC-match was dubious, to say the least. His reign not utterly convincing, in fact I hold the highest admiration for VK after his loss to Anand. His rather arrogant attitude (especially against GK) while being champ changed, and he now, also in interviews, appears quite sympathetic. I think it will be a very interesting match.>|
Good post. Certainly Kramnik's career can't compare with Kasparov's, not even in one particular category, but the comparison with Fischer is more difficult. It seems in terms of quantity Kramnik is somewhat ahead of BF, although certainly in quality BF certainly leads. And yea it's refreshing to see Kramnik change his silly attitude, realizing (hopefully) his relatively modest place in history of chess. He's growing up, and that's a positive development.
On the side note: Kramnik is right about the Brother's K: the thing is way too long. I envy people who have the patience to read something so long. If it has (which I am sure it does) an important philosophical message, it seems Dostoyevsky could have communicated it in a much more compact manner, say 300 pages? Although then it wouldn't be classical literature anymore...
<Aronian to win by 4-2> sounds about right. Good luck to both players.
|Apr-19-12|| ||Softpaw: <shach matov:... it seems Dostoyevsky could have communicated it in a much more compact manner, say 300 pages? Although then it wouldn't be classical literature anymore... >|
It's a great novel, with many oft-referenced scenes (e.g., The Grand Inquisitor parable)--but it does ramble.
Don't forget though, that it was a serial novel, written in 16 installments that were published in the Russian Herald over a period of almost two years. Dostoevsky admitted that of all his novels, the Brothers K. was the least planned out before he began writing the installments.
<[...]First, the separate edition, which appeared immediately after the serialization was completed and which serves as the basis for modern editions, preserves many aspects of the novel's serial form: titles, subtitles, segmentation, and format, even when the format was a typesetter's mistake, as was the case with the single uninterrupted paragraph of "The Grand Inquisitor."
In preserving his serial form, Dostoevsky differed from such Western writers as Dickens, Thackeray, or Trollope, who would dissolve and regroup the parts of their serials into new wholes as they prepared separate editions.
Second, the separate edition of The Brothers Karamazov preserves the mnemonic strategies (summaries, repeated phrases, recurring imagery) which Dostoevsky used to enable his initial readers to bridge the gaps between installments.
The devices which made it possible for readers to control nearly two years of reading prove not unhelpful for readers encountering the 700-page assembled text. Third, the initial critical response to the novel, which has set important issues for modern scholarship, frequently addressed the uncompleted novel.
Dostoevsky himself, who had only written several books of the novel when he began serialization, could react to this criticism as he continued to write and, in fact, entertained the possibility of responding to his critics in a letter to the editor of The Russian Herald which appeared at the end of the first year of serialization.
Finally, the demands of serial publication increased the myriad tensions that were involved in nineteenth-century fiction-writing, tensions between the parties in the literary process (such as writers and editors and censors), between the novel's status as both a material object and an intellectual-artistic phenomenon, between the economic needs and interests of writers and publishers and their ideological concerns, between the need to seize the public's attention and to create art of the highest level, between ongoing engagement with the issues of the day and attempts to realize artistic insights of enduring value, between the integrity of the novel's parts and their place in the larger whole, or, to put it somewhat differently, between the part's place in an issue of a periodical and its place in the novel. >
|Apr-19-12|| ||offramp: The greatest height difference in the history of competitive sport.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||offramp: <AVRO38: [Kramnik] says that he read "The Brothers Karamazov" but didn't like it. This is a stunning remark. I have never met anyone who has read the book and not been completely awed by it's brilliance. He clearly did not understand the book. I don't see how it could be possible to understand it and not like it. Since it's publication in 1880 it has been hailed the world over as humanity's supreme achievement in literature.>|
Here is an oddity:
<Avro38> says, <Since it's publication in 1880 it has been hailed the world over as humanity's supreme achievement in literature...>
<Wikipedia> says, <Since its publication, it has been acclaimed all over the world ... as one of the supreme achievements in literature.>
Almost identical, except that <Wikipedia> knows the difference between <it's> and <its>.
|Apr-19-12|| ||King Death: <offramp> So a plagiarist is exposed, how original. Maybe to expect something original out of somebody that comes up with half beked nonsense when he talks about one great player or another is just too much.|
We should all thank <offramp> for showing us the fraud that has popped up in our midst.
|Apr-19-12|| ||Mudphudder: I believe Aronian will take it. But it will be a close one.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||acirce: Yes. 3½-2½ Aronian.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||JohnDahl: Call yourself a Kramnik fan? Aronian's prospects are akin to those of that North Korean rocket. Vlad will win by 2 or 3 games.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||drnooo: the only long novel I have ever been able to read, and frankly even skipped about half of that was Nostromo the only novel of Fitzgerald's I ever read word for word was The Great Gatsby|
with utmost wariness and weariness I approach all the long ones with a very short gaze including Melville
great great passages in all of them
but geez....mostly just boring
nevertheless we will always have
|Apr-19-12|| ||drnooo: in passing, it was with a shock to find out that Fitzgerald said the novel he wished he had written was Nostromo|
|Apr-19-12|| ||AVRO38: <King Death><We should all thank <offramp> for showing us the fraud that has popped up in our midst.>|
And the fact that I could have written the Wikipedia article has completely escaped you!!
But what can one expect? To a moron from Oregon, Dostoyevsky is some pinko commie who wants to take away your guns!!
Go back to your Archie comics and your sheep and your militia unit (can you see Russia from your house?). A discussion on Dostoyevsky is way over your head!
|Apr-19-12|| ||Marmot PFL: Hard to pick a winner, but I think Kramnik's match experience might give him the edge.|
|Apr-19-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Chess site or literature or history site?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 15 ·