< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
|Feb-26-13|| ||Tiggler: 21. Nc4 was undoubtedly the best move of the game, though 21. Re3 would also win.|
I don't believe for a moment this game is genuine, however. Oppenheimer, if he played chess at all, would have been way better than this.
|Feb-26-13|| ||Shams: <Tiggler> You went back a ways to find that. In hindsight I'm not sure why I pushed back on the idea. Any talk about what the German targets would have been?|
The fun conversation three pages back is the one on electromagnetism.
|Feb-27-13|| ||morfishine: <Tiggler> Of course the game is authentic; Einstein was devoted to truth|
Can you imagine the "fall-out" if the game was proven fake? The controversy would "mushroom" to the point of questioning Einstein's credibility
|Feb-27-13|| ||morfishine: ...and in a "flash" of inspiration, White plays 21.Nc4...|
|Feb-27-13|| ||Tiggler: <Shams>: From the Nobel Prize Committee in 1953:|
<The Nobel Prize in Literature 1953 was awarded to Winston Churchill "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values".>
Seems that things have changed a little since then in Stockholm!
|Feb-27-13|| ||Tiggler: <morfishine> Willy-nilly nuclear nightmate, if you ask me.|
|Mar-01-13|| ||tzar: I see a lot of patronizingly superior attitude in this page concerning Einsteinīs chess level.|
If we assume Einstein was only an occasional chess player the game shows great natural talent.
Einstein soon understands that his opponent is a patzer against which there is no need to use deep strategical concepts and that a quite smart tactical game will be enough to crash him. Due to his friendship it seems he had acquired a touch of Laskerīs psychological greatness in finding which kind of game was required to beat his opponent.
From the game we cannot assess Einsteinīs level, we should have a game against a stronger player to start seeing his limitations.
If by mistake chessgames.com would have written it was Lasker vs Oppenheimer I donīt think many people would have noticed the difference :):):)
|Mar-01-13|| ||thomastonk: <tzar> This game is a fake. To draw conclusions from wrong assumptions is nonsense. Einstein didn't play chess. That's all.|
|Mar-01-13|| ||Abdel Irada: <thomastonk>, I think you are taking Einstein too literally and overlooking an important element of his personality: his startling humility.|
There is in fact an oft-repeated (from various sources) anecdote about Einstein's frequent humorous sally, "I'm no Einstein, you know."
Here, when Einstein says he knows nothing about chess, I am inclined to take it as a relative statement: Since he didn't understand chess at grandmaster level, he modestly said he knew nothing about the game. In fact, it may well be that he really had no particular *knowledge* of the game, but played merely by improvisation.
However, many tests have established the validity of the idea that mental skills are to some extent transferable, and an extremely intelligent person knowing nothing about a game will perform at a far higher level than his lack of experience might lead one to suppose.
This has been tested, for example, with new games of skill introduced to grandmasters who'd never tried them, but quickly picked up enough to play creditably.
Therefore, to announce flatly, "This game is a fake" seems premature at best and presumptuous to boot. You *may* be right, but I am not inclined to take your word for it.
|Mar-01-13|| ||Absentee: Too early for "Oppen Gangnam Style".|
|Mar-01-13|| ||thomastonk: <Abdel Irada> No, my statement is not premature at all. |
The game has a history which is well-known (here and elsewhere). It appeared first in a German book called "Freude am Schach" by Gerhard Henschel in 1959. This book contains other games being dubios and/or constructed. I have read the book, and even besides the games it is more like a book of fairytales on chess.
Your example of Einstein's humour is obvious humour. Einstein's statements on chess lack of this, and so I prefer to take them literally instead of interpreting them just the opposite direction!
I have also looked at the Bird/Sherwin biography on Oppenheimer and found nothing (but honestly speaking I didn't liked it too much and so I omitted parts of the almost 700 pages which seemed less promising).
|Mar-01-13|| ||tzar: <thomastonk: Einstein didn't play chess. That's all.>|
Einstein played chess occasionally when he was a student. Later on he abandoned chess, which does not mean that since then he never played a single game in his life. In fact, the reasons he gives to not like chess imply that he knew the game well enough to know he disliked it...of course it is also possible or even very possible that the game was never played and then, it will be interesting to know who faked it and why.
|Mar-01-13|| ||Abdel Irada: <thomastonk>: I find your arguments unconvincing. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if more conclusive evidence is forthcoming.|
|Mar-02-13|| ||thomastonk: <tzar: and then, it will be interesting to know who faked it and why.> It was Gerhard Henschel who also faked games of Tolstoy and Stalin. But why? Maybe it is fun to fake games and see that others enjoy them and believe in their authenticity, even if their fishy source has been revealed?!|
<Abdel Irada: I find your arguments unconvincing.> I am not too surprised.
|Mar-02-13|| ||Abdel Irada: <<Abdel Irada: I find your arguments unconvincing.> I am not too surprised.>|
You'd probably be still less surprised if you spent time on the <Kenneth Rogoff> forum, where skepticism is an art form unto itself and for good reason. ;-)
|Jun-26-13|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Edward Winter <8110. The Immortal Game>|
Entry written by Olimpiu Urcan:
<Page xvi (287-288): the alleged game between <<<Einstein and Oppenheimer>>> is given as a certainty despite the lack of trustworthy sources (as documented in C.N.s 3533, 3667, 3691 and 4133). An endnote offers no source for the game, merely sending the reader to an animated version at a <<<highly undependable website>>>, chessgames.com;>
I counsel a thorough investigation of <C.N.s 3533, 3667, 3691 and 4133> before we just let this "game" sit here, causing real chess historians to sneer at us.
Urcan's credentials are impeccable.
|Dec-26-13|| ||MarkFinan: If this game is for real, which I see some are disputing, then it's the best example I've ever seen of the 'If the brains wired for chess, then it's just wired for chess' argument. Einstein plays all the moves I would have yet was only *slightly* more intelligent than I am!?! 😆
And Oppenheimer should have stuck to making bombs powerful enough to wipe out life as we know it... apart from Keith Richards and the odd cock a roach!|
|Apr-17-14|| ||perfidious: <maxi.....in my experience, one of the hardest things for a human being to do is to be a good teacher.>|
That's for sure.
|Apr-17-14|| ||offramp: Ian Dury comments :
Einstein can't be classed as witless.
He claimed atoms were the littlest.
When you did a bit of splitting-em-ness
It frightened everybody shirtless.
|May-02-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: My hero could play chess well! And great pun for this game.|
|Aug-05-15|| ||Trammy Cotch: 8...B-QB4! 9. P-Q4 NxQP! & the Lively Bish and knights stage a tri-piece attack|
|Aug-23-15|| ||morfishine: No use splitting atoms, er splitting hairs over the authenticity of this game|
|Apr-26-16|| ||devere: Einstein only took up residence at Princeton in October 1933, and Oppenheimer was then a young professor teaching at U Cal Berkeley 3000 miles away, so it is unlikely that this game was ever played in Princeton as stated.|
Oppenheimer did do some part-time lecturing at Cal Tech, and Einstein had been there early in 1933, so the two of them conceivably might have met in Pasadena.
|Apr-26-16|| ||WannaBe: https://www.chess.com/blog/ChessNet...|
See note 3533: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
I have to dig up my (tome) on the biography of Einstein by Walter Isaacson and cross reference 1933 and Princeton. If I can only find that in my boxes and boxes of books...
|Apr-27-16|| ||wwall: Einstein and Princeton in 1933 show up on page 425 in Isaacson's book. No mention of meeting Oppenheimer until the 1940s. Oppie was doing astrophysics work at Berkeley and CalTech in the 1930s and did not join Princeton until after WW II. I have no additional info of Einstein, Oppenheimer and chess in my article http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/a...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·