|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-02-05 | | maoam: This is a classic example: Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 |
|
Apr-02-05
 | | Eric Schiller: <whiskeyrebel> I often encourage my students to play a combination of openings that play to their strengths, and those that address their weaknesses. To learn tactics, I encourage lots of 1.e4 e5 games. At the same time, they often have a "second" opening, which is a solid Rubinstein Attack (Colle with b3 instead of c3). Against 1.d4, they mostly play the Tarrasch, which has both tactics and positional themes. If they are in a mood for a brawl, they open 1.e4. If they are not, then 1.d4. But this is mood, not style. |
|
Apr-02-05
| | Eric Schiller: <maoam> Psychological choices fit into the "mood" rather than "style" category. Of course, among players familiar with each other, psychological warfare, including bluffing, is part of the game! |
|
| Apr-02-05 | | mack: Frankly, opening 1.e4 is far too much effort for me. In fact, I've never bothered learning a particular opening in my life, I just make up my own theory really. |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | Jaymthegenius: It was Schiller in ECW that gave me my view on chess style "style is a cover word for weaknesses someone is trying to hide or avoid!" I even took this advice to hold true in everything (I told my wrestling coach the same thing about style, he said "no, not neccessarily" But I agree with Schiller, I admit I have a style (cover word for weakness group) my style is to create positions in which I can pressure an important square more times then
the opponent can protect, and watch his structure crumble (this is what tactical combonations are made of) and to give my opponent doubled isolated pawns at any opertunity (usually at the cost of bishop pair, which I dont really care to have) and to avoid exchanging both rooks, and to go for early queen exchanges that will improve my position, and to exchange bishops of the same color if possible. From this we can conclude that, my "style" is...
1. A poor player of bishop of opposite color endgames 2. Someone who is bad at queen endings, and thus want to avoid them 3. Am quite skilled at calculation, and wouldnt really excell at positions that dont require it. note to <Schiller>: I am a member of Glia Society, a high IQ society meant for people at or above the 99.9th %ile, and in this group is IM Albert Frank, and Fide Master Michael Hansley. I was wondering if you would be up to a correspondance game between the Glia society. Or you can play the Chessgames.com posters. The captains would be Me, Rising Champ (as he is almost a GM), Misguided Aggression, or whoever we vote for. We would vote on moves, and captains would act more like advisers. I am quite confident you can make it into such a group (afterall, you are the greatest writer of openings in the history of chess, I was debating someone some months ago, they say "Lucena greatest opening writer of all time, he writes extensive on Giuco Piano, Russian game, Nimzo-Larsen attack, King gambit, Queen Gambit, ( I am unsure about Nimzo attack, but he definatly covered the others) and goes on to list abunch of other openings. But I say "UTTER RUBBISH! Nimzovich, Reti, and Schiller are the best opening writters in history! www.gliaweb.net |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | Appaz: <Jaymthegenius> Just out of curiosity: what have you done that makes you a genius. Besides taking some tests, I mean. |
|
Apr-03-05
| | Eric Schiller: <jay et. al.> I'm usully up for a game. I play my "correspondence" games at www.chess.ac which has a nice, easy to use web-page access. As for the brain societies, well, I qualfied for Mensa but am much more comfortable with aging Deadheads, you can learn a lot from the ones who survived the 60s and 70s :-) More seriously, I hang out with brainy linguists (I have my PhD in that field), musicians and very wise progressives. Working on Arianna Huffington's campaign, well, the average IQ in the room was pretty high! And the level of conversation when Kasparov is involved can be stratospheric. There are few experiences that can compare with hanging out with a bunch of top GMs and talking about anything but chess. At Bugojno 1982, with the Falklands War raging, it was wonderful to have breakfast with Spassky, Petrosian, Najdorf, Timman, Kasparov, Andersson, Ljubojevic. Najdorf put forth the Argentinian view, while I, residing in London at that time, was the token "Brit" for those conversations. Poor Najdorf was pretty much alone, but he put up a good fight. Of course, you don't need to be a GM to be interesting. I've learned a lot at Olympiads, and especially from the Palestinian players, since at the time their views were not available in the American press. So, I've never felt any incentive to join brainy societies. In chess, we already have one. Though modern players are not as well educated or as well read as many in the past (due to the professional nature of chess, and time-consuming preparation), there are still some amazing folks. Talk to Kasimdzhanov about American literature, for example. Puts me to shame! |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | Larsker: <Geniuses> I think there are different kinds of intelligence. Some are good at chess, others at sports, others at working with people, etc. It's not often one meets a renaissance man - someone educated in many fields. Personally, I know no geniuses - but I distinguish between good craftsmanship and bad one. I remember seeing a clip on French television about the best baker in Paris. He slept in front of the ovens for fear that something go wrong while the bread was being baked. He delivered bread to some of the leading and most expensive restaurants in Paris. He was extremely good at his craft - baking bread was his life. Pure genius is not everything - if you have nothing to pin it up on. Who likes a genius who has no stories to tell? Mozart was a genius AND extremely good at his craft, having started learning music before he could write. What a combo. Many Mensa members have extremely trivial jobs - they have all this brain power but are unable to use it for anything meaningful. I recognize a genius when I see one - but I don't bow to him. So he has a bigger brain than me - and Schwarzenegger has a bigger body - but what is he using it for - that's what I wanna know. If it's just for posing, then I couldn't care less. I'd prefer a really good craftsman any minute in stead of a half-baked genius. As to the brain, it's still partly terra incognito. How can someone be the best in one field of work and an idiot at other things. I read an article about Stanley Kubrick - his wife had to certain things for him that an 8-year old child would normally be able to do for himself. He simply couldn't learn it - but, oh, he could make films. As to chess - I'm more interested in what it does to people than in chess itself. Sure - the intricacies of the backward flip in the Caro-Khan - my Fritz 8 can calculate it better than most geniuses. But my Fritz 8 cannot tell me the miracle of life, why some people are only happy when they play chess, it cannot compose music like Ravel or be funny like Letterman. |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | pazzed paun: ...If Letterman was funny... |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | WillC21: <Larsker> Your piece is interesting in so far as you advocate that a genius is of little use or desirability when classifiable as an "idiot savant." While this is a matter of opinion, I do tend to agree with you in the sense that the world is a practical place. However, this must not detract from the fact that there are many geniuses(as defined by high IQ) who are "normal in every other sense" and have contributed greatly to their fields much more than the "average" person ever could. Four examples: Socrates, Isaac Asimov, Blaise Pascal, and Garry Kasparov! |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | Appaz: <Larsker> Very good points! <<WillC21> Socrates, Isaac Asimov, Blaise Pascal, and Garry Kasparov> What makes you so sure that these guys has/had an high IQ? I've never seen any scores for them. Think about it: how often do you see an IQ score in connection with a practical genius? My guess is that the IQ system capture just a tiny part of the mental and spiritual abilities of man. |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | Kajtek: Asimov was a member of Mensa, so it's pretty certain he had a high IQ |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | WillC21: <Appaz> I got them off of a very reputable list of famous people(both dead and alive) who have high IQ's. I could name fifty more of them but I figured four would suffice ;) |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | mack: What IQ is required to join Mensa? |
|
| Apr-03-05 | | Appaz: <Kajtek> Well, there we have at least one. <WillC21> You are kidding. There was no such thing as an IQ tests on Socrates or Pascals time! The first IQ test was made in 1905: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ <mack> You have to be among the 2% "smartest". I think it is about an IQ of 130. |
|
Apr-03-05
| | Eric Schiller: <Appaz et al> IQ is largely based on pattern recognition, and creativity counts for nothing. All chess masters seem to have high IQ, but as has been pointed out, it really isn't a measure of "intelligence". David Levy's tests for creativity are much more interesting. I find it hard to judge "genius" from historical material. When I'm in the room with a brilliant person, I tend to recognize it right away. But with historical figures, there is always the question: "OK, you have nice insights but how could you fail to notice ..." At the same time, the genius of a DaVinci, Bach, Mozart or Picasso is obvious at first glance. It is tougher with philosophers and politicians. |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | Appaz: <Eric Schiller> My impression is that comedians often have a high IQ. That makes sense to me, because humor is often based on seeing things most people will recognize, and then give them an unexpected twist. Comedians will also often take very different phenomenas and mix them to get a funny result. Pattern recognition will be to a great help here. Psychopaths will often have a high IQ, and they may also be good at predicting other peoples reaction to their behaviour. But when put under scrutiny, they will often fail to see how they appear in other peoples eyes. We had a trial here in Norway, where a highly intelligent marine officer was accused of murdering his wife. The interesting thing was how he insisted on defending himself (no lawyer). He came up with advanced mathematical formulas and conspiracy theories that presumedly should convince the jury of his innocence, but failed to see how ridiculous his defence was. He was convicted of murder, and was not allowed to take his case to the Supreme Court. |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | mack: <I think it is about an IQ of 130.> Really? That's quite low isn't it? |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | Appaz: <mack> There seems to be no absolute limit other than "among the 2% smartest". Since IQ is not strictly scientific (different tests yield different scores), it is differcult to give a definite answer. My little joke: Beeing a member of Mensa may be a proof of the opposite.
:) |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | ranchogrande: thx to <Larsker> ,<Schiller> and <Appaz> for sharing your views upon IQ´s,presuming such a cicumstance is of any value , in the wider perspective.
I much appreciate the story of Jesus when HE washed the feet of John the Baptist.And simular to this , when Gandhi continued to clean the toilets,after the people recognised him as "Gandhi".
And the older I grow , the more it occurs to me that Life IS so big - and hence it cannot really be defined - though it can be helpful to use "definitions"it for some purposes.
And about <comedians> I prob. feel much like you <Appaz>.E.g. IF I only were to use one word for Intelligence - I would go: improvisation.And about
<psycopaths> : all studies (to my knowledge),show that they all(or close to)have this in common:the lack of empathy for others.
Hereby I wish you all a very good day - Im enjoying your company and hope that you <Eric> will go on with this,
beautifull site !
"A good joke is just a few laughs away" |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | Appaz: <ranchogrande> Funny you should mention Ghandi, because I thought of him last night in connection with this discussion (but forgot to mention him in my last post). I consider him, together with the likes of Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela, to be <very> smart people, but I wouldn't expect them to score exceptionally good on an IQ test. In my eyes, a person who lives a happy and harmonious life must be rather smart, even if he/she doesn't score high on an IQ test. |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | JustAFish: <Appaz: My impression is that comedians often have a high IQ. That makes sense to me, because humor is often based on seeing things most people will recognize, and then give them an unexpected twist. > I had exactly the same thought a while back while mulling over I.Q. for the discussion on the Einstein page. Comedians are brilliant in a way that is not measurable by I.Q. tests. I've often referred to the ability to see things that others don't recognize (even if they're right in front of everyone's nose) as "seeing the air." Many great authors and poets "see the air" as well. |
|
Apr-04-05
 | | Sneaky: There's so many different types of intelligence, it's impossible to come up with a magic number to measure it. When Kasparov converts a tactical middlegame into a winning endgame, when Johnny Chan decides to push all of his poker chips into the pot, Yo-Yo Ma holdiing that high-note on his Cello for just the right amount of time, even Michael Jordan shooting a three-pointer, those are all examples of different types of genius. The ability to fill in bubbles on standardized intelligence tests is the result of still another type of intelligence; but nobody can seriously argue that this one type of intelligence is a measure of all the others. |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | ranchogrande: thanks<Appaz> and funny you should mention Dalai Lama .. As I just had a dream with him 2-3 nights ago were we had really good laughs together ! And according to mine "I.Q." you must be right.These guys dont care about numbers.The soul has no rating - as far as I sense/believe.
And as one of my former"masters"/inspirators did put it:
"The biggest trip of all , is, that we are all pretending we are not buddahs"...And I see some truth in it,though it can be understood in 1000
different ways.
So transformed to chess : Its about harmony.As having "just"e.g. 1400 but being happy with the game , is more attractive than having 2300 -2800 and not living a satisfied life.Hence I dont agree with the term "patzer". |
|
| Apr-04-05 | | ranchogrande: good points <sneaky> and there are billions of other examples - which could mean that we all are worthy og going into Guinnes!And if thats true -would mean we dont need those books any more. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
