< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Jun-12-13|| ||perfidious: <HMM>: Another piece of work.|
|Jun-18-13|| ||PhilFeeley: <AR> Too many books to read. I already have more than I can deal with for the rest of my chess life. Thanks for the discussion.|
|Jul-17-13|| ||Everett: Well, you play a system and make moves on principle when you are able to. But each position is different, so chess players have to address specific issues in specific ways. |
Larsen put it best when he said that there is no "System" of play in Nimzo's books, just intriguing and worthwhile concepts to study and utilize at the chessboard when appropriate.
|Aug-23-13|| ||kingfu: He's back! Spraggett had a nice attack starting from the English in the first round. It is the 15th Internacional de Sants in Barcelona, Spain.|
|Nov-10-13|| ||ketchuplover: happy birthday young man|
|Nov-10-13|| ||Kikoman: <Player of the Day>|
Happy 59th Birthday GM Kevin Spraggett! :D
|Nov-10-13|| ||Penguincw: Happy 59th birthday to Canadian GM: Kevin Spraggett.|
|Jan-31-14|| ||bravado1: These remarks about "My System" are to say the least unfair. I'm not an expert on chess hisrory, but I think that the work by Nimzowitsch was breakthrough and revolutionary not because of the analyses of specific positions - here obviously Nimzo made mistakes - but in the general "systematic" approach to chess. Before him people either analyzed particular games or limited themselves to laconic observations that 'in this kind of positions white is always better". Seeing chess and a game of chess as based on and imbedded in a general system can be compared to de Saussure's novel view of language as a system of signs. He also committed some obvious mistakes like the lack of relation between the sign and the objective reality, but on the whole he set the foundations for all contemporary linguistic approaches. In other words, de Saussure established language as the object of studies and Nimtzowitsch prepared the ground for the contemporary approach to chess. Chess studies where chess is "science", independent of the actual players at the board and their preferences.|
|Feb-01-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi bravado1:
Nimzovitch's 'My System' is the marmite of the chess world.
You either dot on it like a fanatic or loathe it with a passion.
No other chess book can bring forth such mixed reactions.
Personally 'My System' (the original English 1930's translation) did nothing for me.
It was cluttered up making it very hard reading. Uninviting, like looking at porridge.
Also, as I found out much later, it was poorly translated with much of humour
watered down or simply left out.
That is one thing you must remember when reading a translated book.
These are not the authors original words. These are his words translated.
The recent translation of 'My System' by Quality Chess is superb.
What a difference from the original English edition.
Unfortunately 40 years too late to do me any good.
Speaking of translations, Nimzovitch books and his self-promotion.
The translated book of the Carlsbad Tournament 1929 written by Nimzovitch
is the strangest tournament book I have ever read.
Even the translator, Jim Marfia, writes in the translator's preface:
"...It becomes less of a factual report of a tournament than a tract,
a polemic, or perhaps more accurately something we moderns [this was written in 1981]
might call 'a bit of self-promtion'.
The whole book would slip neatly in 'My System' under the heading:
'How Other Players Are Using My System.'
|Feb-01-14|| ||perfidious: <Sally Simpson.....Nimzovitch's 'My System' is the marmite of the chess world. You either dot on it like a fanatic or loathe it with a passion.>|
My experience was to neither dote on it nor loathe it and don't understand all this, really.
|Feb-01-14|| ||john barleycorn: yes, and the same can be said about tarrasch' writings. however, nobody is forced to read either of the two|
|Feb-03-14|| ||Sally Simpson: "...and don't understand all this, really."
Nowhere near as many chess books knocking about in the 60's/70's as there are now.
So good book discussions were somewhat limited.
I've witnessed a 'My System' argument descend into fisticuffs.
Also check any forum where a player has asked for a book to help them improve.
Someone will suggest 'My System' and usually, not far behind, will come someone saying avoid it.
Tarrasch was mentioned.
In the same thread I have in the past pointed a reader towards: 'Tarrasch's Best Games' by Reinfeld (Reinfeld's best book).
I'd only suggest a book I know that brought me along and gave me a huge lift up.
A book that worked for me.
|Feb-24-14|| ||PhilFeeley: A recent game, not here yet. I couldn't find it in TWIC or Chessmix yet either:|
Spraggett, K – Movsziszian,K
1:0, 22- 2-2014 (Catalan Team Championship, round 5)
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 Nc6 5. Bb5 a6 6. Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. O-O O-O 9. Kh1 Rb8 10. Qd3 Nd7 11. b3 c5 12. Be3 cxd4 13. Bxd4 e5 (13… Bh6!) 14. fxe5 Nxe5 15. Bxe5! dxe5 16. Qc4² c6 17. Rad1 Qb6 [17... Qa5 18. Ng5!] 18. Rd6 [18. Na4!? Qb5 19. Qc3] 18… Be6 19. Qd3 Rfe8 [19... Rbd8!] 20. Na4! Qb4 [20... Qc7 21. Nc5! Bf8 22. Rxe6 Bxc5 23. Rf6 Be7 24. Rxf7!] 21. c3 [21. Ng5!] 21… Qb5 22. c4 Qb4 23. Ng5! Bc4 24. Qxc4 1-0 (24...Qxd6 25. Qxf7+ Kh8 26. Qxe8+ Rxe8 27. Nxf7+ and 28. Nxd6)
Notes above and commentary on his blog.
|Apr-17-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: Anyone checked out this dude's site?
NSFW -- be warned.
|Apr-17-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Wyatt Gwyon: Anyone checked out this dude's site? >|
the chess diagrams are a bit disturbing.
|Apr-17-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: <john> Yeah, and I'd say the graphic suicide picture is a close second.|
|Apr-17-14|| ||Refused: Actually nice to see GM actually understanding how a website is supposed to be. Ok, personally I would remove that rotten pic (aka graphic suicide) with a meme. But well, I would not be too surprised if he picked up a few ideas from 4chan. |
To those complaining the site is a bit too explicit or something <Welcome to the internet.>
|Apr-17-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: <Refused> Yeah Spraggett just shot up toward the top of the list of GMs I'd like to have a beer with.|
|Jul-18-14|| ||docbenway: Mister Spraggett, since you're adroit at heaping criticism on Obama and singing the praise of Putin you're surprising silent on your website about the mass murder in the skies over Ukraine that is being linked to your hero's military support of the separatists.|
|May-23-15|| ||TheFocus: <The ‘‘Russian School’’ training system and the ‘‘Botvinnik’’ training system are both work intensive programs that often require years of collaboration with the trainer to be effective. This effectiveness is not in doubt, and has been proven over and over again throughout the years. However, the student is required to do much independent work at home, just as if he was taking a university course. Therefore any expectations of even short term gains are pure nonsense> - Kevin Spraggett.|
|Sep-06-15|| ||Penguincw: Kevin Spraggett finishes with 6/9, just half a point behind the winners at the Portugal Open.|
|Nov-10-15|| ||Penguincw: Damn it! A few minutes late, but happy birthday to Canadian Kevin Spraggett!|
|Nov-11-15|| ||Nina Myers: I think Canada needs more immigrants. That should be priority number 1.|
|Nov-12-15|| ||PhilFeeley: <AgentRgent> As an addendum, I recently found this in John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch".|
On page 14, he writes: " It is important to realize that the beginning of his book <My System> is to some extent an introduction to chess. It therefore includes a number of elementary 'rules' for the student, some of which Nimzowitsch himself did not adhere to."
Sounds much like Spraggett.
|Nov-12-15|| ||keypusher: < bravado1: These remarks about "My System" are to say the least unfair. I'm not an expert on chess hisrory, but I think that the work by Nimzowitsch was breakthrough and revolutionary not because of the analyses of specific positions - here obviously Nimzo made mistakes - but in the general "systematic" approach to chess. Before him people either analyzed particular games or limited themselves to laconic observations that 'in this kind of positions white is always better". >|
<not because of the analyses of specific positions - here obviously Nimzo made mistakes>
Accuracy in annotations counts for a lot, I think. Or it should. I enjoy reading Tarrasch's annotations more than Lasker's, but if Lasker is seeing things that Tarrasch is missing, or avoiding errors that Tarrasch is making, I suspect I'm better off studying with Lasker.
This is separate and apart from the notion that in some of his annotations, Nimzowitsch basically misrepresented what was going on in the game.
<Nerwal: <If you don't approve Nimzowitsch's demonstrations of the "My System" concepts in games versus "C-class" players (as Marshall, Teichmann, Tarrasch, Bogoljubov, Rubinstein and some-such>
It was probably a reference to games like this one : Von Gottschall vs Nimzowitsch, 1926. Dvoretsky proved that White could equalize at various points and that black's "deep moves" were actually not that strong objectively. A good grandmaster should be able to hold this as White without breaking a sweat, while Gottschall did everything wrong basically.>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·