|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-23-19
 | | keypusher: <JimNorCal>
It’s a silly thing to say any time. Tartakower was a fine player and a great chess writer, but he was never a threat to be world champion at any point during his 50-year career, and I can’t think of any time in chess history when he would have been a threat. See for yourself. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... |
|
| Aug-23-19 | | JimNorCal: <key>, your chart shows Savielly as #2 in the world in 1921 behind Rubinstein IF you remove Capa. I'd consider that WC potential.
No way did ST ever outmatch Capa, Lasker or AA. But he could hold his own against the rest of the pack. He "coulda been a contender", as they say in the movies. |
|
Aug-23-19
| | keypusher: <9 JimNorCal: <key>, your chart shows Savielly as #2 in the world in 1921 behind Rubinstein IF you remove Capa.> Yes, at a time when chessmetrics ratings were meaningless because of the shutdown in international chess caused by World War I. By that point Lasker and Alekhine were markedly stronger than Rubinstein and Bogoljubow was roughly as good. Any of them would have been heavy favorites against Tartakower, Maroczy or Vidmar would have been even money, and of course let’s not even speak of Capablanca. |
|
Aug-25-19
| | keypusher: I should have noted that Spielmann beat Tartakower in a match in 1921. |
|
| Aug-26-19 | | JimNorCal: <keypusher>:"I should have noted ..." You should have noted that with Capa, Lasker and Alekhine on the scene, Tartakover had no realistic chance to be World Champ. If you imagine a chess world without those three, ST could conceivably have made it. |
|
| Aug-26-19 | | JimNorCal: Tartakover was competitive with Spielmann.
LIFETIME RECORD:
Classical games: Savielly Tartakower beat Rudolf Spielmann 18 to 14, with 29 draws Ignoring draws, ST won their final decisive encounter. RS won the 3 previous games (1925 and 1926) while ST won the 3 before that (1923). The point being: Tartakover did not run up a plus score early which drained away after Spielmann hit his peak. No, they were competitive throughout. |
|
Aug-26-19
| | keypusher: <JimNorCal: Tartakover was competitive with Spielmann. > You've now moved the goalposts so far that they're no longer in the stadium. And Tartakower is as far from being a threat to the world title as ever. |
|
| Aug-28-19 | | JimNorCal: "moved the goalposts"
Not at all, dear keypusher.
My contention: 1) with Lasker, Capa, AA in the mix it is unrealistic for GM Tartakover to dream of ever being World Champion. 2) without them, Tartakover was a valid contender. You mentioned Spielmann as beating ST in a match. I responded that their overall record was competitive, indeed, ST held the edge. You mentioned ChessMetrics showed ST never being at the top. I pointed out that ST was second highest at one point (if Capa is dropped). With the Big Three to one side, Tartakover is clearly in the small group of likely WC contenders. How can this opinion possibly be considered silly? |
|
| Nov-09-22 | | Messiah: Very nice finish, it was satisfying to replay this classic game. |
|
| Feb-25-24 | | Saul Goodman: Tartakower had one of the most interesting lives among the elite chess players. A great movie could be made about his life. |
|
| Feb-25-24 | | sudoplatov: I think, some years later with colors reversed, Larsen played b3 (...b6 here instead of ...Ng4 or ...0-0). This develops the QB along the b7-e4 diagonal to restrain White's Center in general and King Pawn in particular. (Per the tenants of the Danish School.) |
|
| Oct-13-24 | | Mathematicar: Seemingly stable position falls like a house of cards. Familiar?
"On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in the checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." |
|
Oct-14-24
| | keypusher: <mathematicar> <"On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in the checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."> Rubinstein is a liar and a hypocrite? Would you care to explain? |
|
| Oct-14-24 | | Mathematicar: <keypusher>
Not at all happy to say this, but it seems that you don't understand Lasker's quote. I think that my first sentence <Seemingly stable position falls like a house of cards.> is self-explanatory in the context of Lasker's quote. In other words, the moves of Black that lead to seemingly safe and stable position, after the combination of White's is revealed, are proven to have something wrong in them and thus White's combination contradicts the above presumption: hypocrite. |
|
Oct-14-24
| | keypusher: < Mathematicar: <keypusher>
Not at all happy to say this, but it seems that you don't understand Lasker's quote.> Let's see how well you understand it.
<In other words, the moves of Black that lead to seemingly safe and stable position, after the combination of White's is revealed, are proven to have something wrong in them and thus White's combination contradicts the above presumption:> So is the series of moves that prove to have something wrong with them the hypocrite? |
|
Oct-14-24
 | | Williebob: The employment of the Lasker quote does seem a bit harsh on Rubinstein, who was inarguably one of the great geniuses. I don't know where it was originally published, but I would guess that Lasker's admonition was meant for amateurs to ponder. |
|
| Oct-14-24 | | stone free or die: <<Williebob> I don't know where it was originally published, ...> Yes, I'd like to know that too. Definitely would like to know the context. I always viewed it as a bit allegorical, referring to the action on the board. But it could also be used in the context of giving a braggart a deserved comeuppance. I'm pretty sure the latter wasn't meant by <Mathematicar> in reference to Rubinstein. imo. |
|
Oct-14-24
 | | beatgiant: <Williebob> It's from Lasker's Manual of Chess (1925). I always understood the quote to mean something like "In chess, incorrect ideas get exposed by game losses." I don't think it's only for amateurs, but a serious player would benefit from this book at an early stage. |
|
| Oct-14-24 | | stone free or die: Ah, thanks <beat>. <"In life we are all duffers"> https://books.google.com/books?id=X... |
|
Oct-14-24
| | Williebob: Thank you, <beatgiant>. By the way, your handle always makes me hear Giant Steps by John Coltrane in my head -- a good thing! :) |
|
| Oct-14-24 | | stone free or die: I should note that though it's contained in <Lasker's Manual>, the actual quote is from Reinfeld's "Emanual Lasker: An Appreciation" preface. So it's Reinfeld quoting Lasker. |
|
Oct-14-24
| | beatgiant: The preface is quoting the book itself. In https://www.chesshistory.com/winter..., Winter cites p. 201 of the 1926 German edition, p. 262 of the 1927 US edition and p. 235 of the 1932 British edition. |
|
| Oct-14-24 | | stone free or die: <beat> - thanks for that nice and complete list. I found it on p235 of my 1960 Dover edition! |
|
| Oct-14-24 | | stone free or die: FWIW - the google translation of the snippet on Winter's page yields the following: <'Well, on the chessboard of the masters, lies and hypocrisy do not last long.'> (Advice to myself - Always check Winter first no matter the question!) |
|
| Oct-15-24 | | Mathematicar: <beatgiant>, thanks for clearing things up. I hold Rubinstein in the highest of regards, but I was referring to the Black's position, not the player himself (ah, that famous quote of Rubinstein's!). Lasker's Manual is quite an amazing book I should add. It's a pitty that I was not willing to learn chess from books when I was a teen. It's quite pleasurable if you really get into it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 31.Rxg7