|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| May-18-08 |
| ateixeira: Hi to all! I'm new here and am trying to learn how to play better chess. I tried to check <Poisonpawns> link but it didn't work. I guess the page is off. So does anybody know a way I can still see it? Or did anybody take notes of Berliner's analysis? Thanks |
 |
May-18-08
 |
| Open Defence: < ateixeira >
I found a limited discussion of the 12..Qa3 line here at page 14 ftp://ajec-echecs.org:45000/CCN/ccnews32.pdf
but other Berliner lines are discussed there |
|
| May-18-08 |
| ateixeira: <Open Defence> Thanks for the pdf. It also has some more discussion on other links so I guess it'll be helpful to me. |
|
Oct-08-08
 |
| Karpova: John Watson thoroughly reviews Hans Berliner's "The System" (Gambit Publications, 1999): http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_re... |
|
| Oct-08-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Thoroughly "trashes" is more like it... |
|
Jan-27-09
 |
| Sneaky: The System is one of the most brilliant chess books of the modern era. I'll match "The System" up against "My System" any day. That's a strong statement, I know. Happy 80th birthday to one of the greatest chess minds of the 20th century, I hope he lives to be 100, when he can witness the world finally catch up to his ideas which were so vastly far ahead of his time. |
|
Jan-27-09
 |
| whiteshark: I'd like to join in every word <sneaky> wrote!! Many happy returns, Mr. Berliner!! |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Mr. Berliner, why haven't you played from 2004 to 2008? |
|
| Feb-14-09 |
| WhiteRook48: seems like this guy is NOT returning to active chess play
:( |
|
Mar-13-09
|
| whiteshark: <Computer experts vastly underestimate the time required to beat the World Champion. <Chess experts, on the other hand, vastly overestimate the time involved.>> --Hans Berliner |
|
| Mar-14-09 |
| Ed Trice: I sat next to Hans Berliner for what turned out to be Hi Tech's last tournament. It won the event, 5-0, at the Pennsylvania State Chess Championship that year. My program, The Sniper (http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMa...), had 2 wins and 3 draws to finish tied for 10th with like a zillion others. We only had a few conversations, but I found a great deal of his insights to be very illuminating. |
|
Mar-14-09
|
| whiteshark: I hope one day I could do an in-depth analysis of his book. |
|
| Mar-14-09 |
| Jim Bartle: I haven't seen "The System" and have no opinion either way about it. But I wonder if the people who think it's great have read the jeremy silman link above, and if so, what they think of Watson's "call out" of a review. |
|
Mar-15-09
|
| whiteshark: <Karpova> I wouldn't call it <thoroughly>. He simply wrote a damning review. |
|
| Mar-15-09 |
| Ed Trice: Berliner's credibility has to be respected, and Silman's review has to be at least suspect. After all, it would be a "conflict of interest", would it not, for him to tout a book by another fellow chess author? I remember reading somewhere that Berliner had something like a 99-1 record as correspondence player on the path to becoming World Champion of correspondence. That's saying something, isn't it? |
|
| Mar-15-09 |
| Jim Bartle: "After all, it would be a "conflict of interest", would it not, for him to tout a book by another fellow chess author?" Under that standard you could toss out most of the New York Time Book Review every week. The reviewers are people who know about the subject of the book in question, and they're often fellow writers on the same or similar subjects. |
|
| Mar-15-09 |
| Jim Bartle: I keep thinking how ridiculous the "conflict of interest' statement concerning book reviewing is, I mean, it's truly monumental. I read the New Yorker, and John Updike reviewed fiction there for thirty years, mostly very positive reviews. But he's suspect because he's also a novelist? And in chess, John Donaldson, Jeremy Silman and many others have reviewed new chess books, including many, many positive reviews. I guess they're suspect as well. John Watson has written glowingly of many chess books (I see them at chesscafe); he just didn't like "The System," and tried to rip it to shreds. OK, today's NY Times Book Review:
"Cheever: A Life," biography reviewed by biographer Geoffrey Wolff. "Sowing Crisis," a book on US policy in the Middle East, is reviewed by political writer James Traub. "1848: Year of Revolution," a history book, is reviewed by historian and author Gary Bass. A novel, "The Cradle," is reviewed by novelist Dean Bakopoulos. The novel "Coventry" is reviewed by novelist Adam Haslett. And those are just from the featured reviews on the front page of today's book review. Sheesh. |
|
| Mar-15-09 |
| MaxxLange: 1. f3: the ideal first move |
|
Apr-21-09
 |
| SirChrislov: In Andrew Soltis' masterpiece the 100 best chess games of the 20th century,ranked,from 1900 to 2000 this game is ranked # 1, and the names are not even famous!!! or the game! number 2 is an otb game by polugayevsky. you know which one. |
|
| Apr-21-09 |
| Jim Bartle: Sorry, but which game are you referring to, SirChrislov? |
|
| Apr-21-09 |
| Sicilian Dragon: <JB, my buddy>
This is the brilliant masterpiece!!!
Estrin vs Berliner, 1965 |
|
| Sep-30-09 |
| GrahamClayton: What do chessgames members think of Berliner's value of the pieces in "My System", eg Pawn = 1
Knight = 3.2
Bishop = 3.3
Rook = 5.1
Queen = 8.8
The values are also affected by positional factors as well. |
|
| Sep-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: I think these numbers are affected somewhat by your choice of opening. For Berliner's openings, they were probably right on the money. |
|
| Sep-30-09 |
| DrCurmudgeon: Bah, humbug! All that stuff means is that if you win the queen but have to give up a rook, 2/3 of a bishop and 1/2 of a knight, you'd better have some other compensation up your sleeve or else file for Chapter 11. |
|
Sep-30-09
 |
| sisyphus: It's much like the numbers Larry Kaufman determined and published in Chess Life some years ago. From memory: P=1, N=3.25, B=3.25, R=5, Q=9.5. In addition, he gave an extra half-pawn for having a bishop pair. It's useful for evaluating certain exchanges, such as (1) two pieces are better than a rook and a pawn, and (2) sacrificing a rook for a piece and a pawn gives up less in material than some people think, and can be more easily justified by other compensation. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
