< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 223 OF 223 ·
|Feb-13-14|| ||twinlark: My earliest formative book influences were Gerald Abrahams' <The Chess Mind> and Irving Chernev's <Logical Chess Move by Move>.|
|Feb-13-14|| ||tzar: I think we are forgeting Tal's influece in chess development. Certainly not having the works ethics of the Soviet School but educated there as a classical player. According to Kasparov his influence was huge because he changed the scientific approach represented and culminated by Botvinnik and showed that a new way of playing was possible based on the unlimited possibilities hidden in every position, defying many times classical rules and principles. Kasparov thinks that the next generation of players (specially attacking players) learned to combine these two approaches to chess, beimg the two main examples himself and Fischer.|
|Feb-13-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Reinfeld 3 - Philidor 1.
Logical Chess another suberb book.
The Chess Mind - very heavy in cases, think you need to be a reasonable player to get it.
Abraham's 'Chess Technique' is very good.
Of course Tal's games should be there,
I was only 10 when he won the WC so know little about the breath of fresh air he brought in.
Not too sure if he defied many of the classical rules and principles.
I think he gave them a good coat of polish.
He never set opening traps and total development was his key.
He did seek unclear positions, which I suppose is anti-classical thinking, because he thrived upon them and discovered other players did not.
A brilliant and gifted player.
Often wince a lttle when weaker players are advised to study Tal's games to get better.
These throw away remarks can do a lot of harm.
OK some of his games, but the books on him concentrate on the sac-bang-crash-walllop sacrifices and the myriad of complications they created.
He was a gifted genius, his games should be savoured, any attempts to emulate them and you will end up frustrated and feel inadequate.
Tal was Tal. A one off genius.
Tarrasch is the lad to look at.
His Best Games (by Reinfeld!!) is one of the best books for anyone wanting ti improve.
These ideas you can grasp and put into your own games and they are entertaining games. You get the enjoyment of the game and learn things at the same time.
A player who played to teach whose games are noted up by a teacher.
That's a winner.
|Feb-13-14|| ||SChesshevsky: <Often wince a little when weaker players are advised to study Tal's games to get better.>|
While Tal's reputation for innovative and daring play was well deserved, his fundamental understanding of positional play is often overlooked.
I never followed him much but I did notice some very nice, unexciting wins he produced.
Tal vs Petrosian, 1967
Tal vs Botvinnik, 1966
|Feb-14-14|| ||RookFile: Tal became increasingly solid as the years went on. There is nothing wrong with studying his games, he was actually a very principled player.|
|Feb-14-14|| ||perfidious: Dvoretsky devoted a chapter in one of his books to Tal's evolution from a player who would essay attacks which did not necessarily have a sound basis (Vasiukov vs Tal, 1961) into a the mature grandmaster who was indeed solid, yet capable of displaying the same combinative vigour (Ribli vs Tal, 1985).|
|Feb-14-14|| ||tzar: <perfidious: Dvoretsky devoted a chapter in one of his books to Tal's evolution from a player who would essay attacks which did not necessarily have a sound basis>|
Tal had a reputation of unsound sacrifices. Kasparov had never studied his games carefully, and he shared this idea to a certain extent. But later on, when he was writing My Great Predecessors he decided to study Tal's games. He was shocked when he discovered that his sacs were not so unsound. He says that it took him a lot of time with the help of a computer (advance chess) to find clear refutations. Just imagine how sound they were in the late 50' when players had to react to Tal's magic over the board in real time.
|Feb-14-14|| ||tzar: That common belief that Tal was an "unsound" player was indeed very expanded. Started by Botvinnik and followed by many other GMs that could not accept that this kind of game had the right to exist. Tal was a player in front of which people felt their mediocrity. IMO his relative loss of strength was mainly due to poor health rather than real playing weaknesses. Certainly, later on he evolved into a more balanced player.|
|Feb-14-14|| ||alexmagnus: Well, in terms of objective evaluation, they <were> unsound - after all, Kasparov <did> find refutations, even when it took him <and> a computer to do it. But this just shows that in human chess, it is not the objectively best move that wins - it is the most difficult to meet one.|
|Feb-14-14|| ||RookFile: Using the same logic, though, you could say that any player's games are unsound.|
|Feb-14-14|| ||alexmagnus: <RookFile> Not complete games, but single moves in the games. After all, most moves in top GM games don't leave the draw range.|
|Feb-14-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi,
But that is the bit that is never added to the 'Study Tal' piece of advice.
IE. "Look at his solid 'normal' games." (and even in those you can often see a spark of genius.)
I'm talking about the lad who is just starting out. These guys need the buidling blocks put in place first.
"Off you go and study Tal" and they won't have a clue what is going on and there is every chance they will be lost to the game forever.
You won't find a typical Tal masterpiece in a primer like 'Logical Chess.' How can you explain the art of creating active counter-play with a spec sacrifices seeking complications to a lad just one step up from a beginner.
Infact how can you explain that black art even to a very good player.
|Feb-17-14|| ||tzar: Tal was a genius, but as all players had his weak points. I.e, although he did quite well against the giants (Karpov, Fischer and Kasparov), even in his best years there were players that he could not handle, specially Korchnoi and Spassky (he has a disastrous record against these two)|
|Feb-17-14|| ||tzar: Against Spassky during the 50' and 60' the score was 9-2 in Spassky's favour. Later on, Tal made it more decent, but when Spassky was not so strong (basically in the late 70' and in the 80' to leave it 9-7). |
Against Korchnoi it was even worst (+4 -13 with 27 draws).Although IMO you can find more talent in a Misha's single game than in the whole of Korchnoi's career:)
|Feb-17-14|| ||Poisonpawns: <Tzar> Great commentary by the way. I wanted to ask you about a previous comment you made: <" I think we are forgeting Tal's influece in chess development. Certainly not having the works ethics of the Soviet School but educated there as a classical player. According to Kasparov his influence was huge because he changed the scientific approach represented and culminated by Botvinnik and showed that a new way of playing was possible based on the unlimited possibilities hidden in every position, defying many times classical rules and principles. Kasparov thinks that the next generation of players (specially attacking players) learned to combine these two approaches to chess, being the two main examples himself and Fischer."> I ask; how could one not learn this from Alekhine.I always regarded him as the first "Kasparov."|
|Feb-17-14|| ||tzar: <Poisonpawns> Interesting question. I also thought about it when Kasparov said that. I think that Kasparov (great admirer of Alekhine) wanted to say that Botvinnik represented the culmination and patriarch of the Soviet School. They thought that after studying all predecessors and chess evolution they had systemized chess through a scientific method followed by Soviet players, with its principles, general rules and methodology and that was the end of the story. Then Tal came as a revolution and the next generation of players took both approaches as a reference.|
|Feb-17-14|| ||tzar: Kasparov also said that Tal's appearance was almost threatening because it brought back romantic elements of chess but in a much higher level than in the pre-Steinitz time.|
|Feb-17-14|| ||Olavi: <tzar> A small correction, the final score between Tal and Spassky was 6-9. Another difficult opponent was Polugaevsky, 8-2.|
|Feb-17-14|| ||devere: <Poisonpawns: I ask; how could one not learn this from Alekhine.I always regarded him as the first "Kasparov.">|
I don't recall Kasparov dodging any opponent the way Alekhine did. If Kasparov had picked easy opponents for his world championship defenses the way Alekhine attempted to do he would soon be celebrating 30 years as champion.
|Feb-18-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi devere:
"I don't recall Kasparov dodging any opponent the way Alekhine did."
Of course then FIDE did not have their hands on the title so the title holder could do what he wanted.
Twice Bogolyubov up with the cash (and should have won it the 2nd time, he frittered loads of good positions). Euwe raised the required cash in 1935 and took over where Bogolyubov failed.
Maths was never my strong point but I make it three defences of the title in 8 years, which is below the old FIDE 3 year gap and overall 5 World Championship matches in 10 years.
More were in the pipeline but WWII happened.
But the statement was not about Alekhine dodging Capablanca it was learning from his games.
Alekhines Best Games 1908-1923.
That is the book where things start to fall into place.
If you fail to learn anything about Chess and how it should be played from that book then take it back to the shop because there must be pages missing.
Either that or you are misreading it like you did Poisonpawns post.
|Feb-19-14|| ||devere: <Sally Simpson:>
Good book, bad man! As a youth I did like Botvinnik's 100 selected games better.
It seems you haven't heard Alekhine's joke about Bogoljubov. As Alekhine told it he dies, goes to heaven, and is stopped by St Peter at the pearly gates with "No chess players are allowed in heaven!" Alekhine sees Bogoljubov inside, and says "But there is Bogoljubov!". To which St. Peter replies "He only thinks he's a chess player!".
|Feb-21-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: Yes Kurtrichards. And thanks for the correction.#|
|Feb-21-14|| ||perfidious: A measure of Karpov's greatness is contained in this excellent summation by <visayanbraindoctor>:|
Russian Superfinals (2013)
<In (1974), feather thin Karpov participates in the Nice Olympiad, beating GMs Hort, Unzicker, Schmidt, and a bunch of other lesser masters, winning the gold, and then mows down Polugaevsky, Spassky, and Korchnoi in grueling tension filled Candidates matches.>
|Feb-21-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: No doubt Karpov is one of the greatest ever. Karpov's play with it's Capablanca-like features, patient, logical, scientific and clinically ruthless method was difficult to breach or withstand; even Kasparov found it immensely hard-going.|
Though I have never been a fan of this particular style, preferring energetic play with a predilection for attacks on the King, I cannot but wholeheartedly accept Karpov's greatness in Chess. After all, I learned my Closed Sicilian chameleon variation from Karpov's 1960s games. This was after my discovery that I was scoring more wins with the Closed Sicilian than with the Open Sicilian.#
|Feb-25-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: That's Closed Sicilian fianchetto variation.#|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 223 OF 223 ·