< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|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.
|Jul-15-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Here is a great interview with Berliner undertaken by the Computer History Museum:|
|Sep-12-10|| ||GamerMan: I beleive kaufman's is 9.75 for the queen, also -1/8 to the rook for each pawn over 5 (and +1/8 for each pawn under 5) and +1/16 to the knight for each pawn over 5.|
I think more interesting is his valuing the pawns based on their locations, does anyone have that list to post up here?
|Sep-12-10|| ||whiteshark: <GamerMan> http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman...
or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_...|
|Sep-13-10|| ||GamerMan: i actually meant hans berliner's complete pawn worth valuation|
|Sep-13-10|| ||whiteshark: <GamerMan> Wiki's <Chess piece relative value> gives you the quintessence of Berliner's pawn evaluations as published in <The System>*, p16-20.|
You'll find the same content, but probably better arranged here: http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki...
*(Berliner, Hans (1999), The System: A World Champion's Approach to Chess, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-10-2) - Worth reading, anyway
|Sep-13-10|| ||whiteshark: <Oral History of Hans Berliner> http://archive.computerhistory.org/...|
|Feb-06-11|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: I was rereading the Silman review of Berliner's System and had a chuckle at this gem:|
<My angst towards postal chess began when I read that many postal aficionados honestly felt that a postal World Champion would beat an over-the-board World Champion in a postal game. The postal caste never seemed to realize that their understanding of chess as a whole was so far below any over-the-board World Champion's as to make the argument virtually laughable. >
If Berliner could draw against a future World Champion OTB, what is so ridiculous about saying that he could beat a OTB champ in a CC match?
|May-14-11|| ||parisattack: <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.>|
'Ich bin ein Berliner.' The System has taken a very bad rap, undeservedly because of its tone, perhaps. But it is an excellent chess tome.
|Sep-18-11|| ||Cemoblanca: I am currently reading "The System: A World Champion's Approach to Chess" by Hans Berliner. I really liked the part "I am not Alone" at the beginning and I wanted to share it with you. Enjoy! :0)|
<Over 60 years ago Alekhine appreciated something that is still not common knowledge today.
After the moves:
1 d4 d5
2 c4 c6
"In my opinion this move gives White more chances of obtaining an opening advantage..."
"It is almost incredible that this quite natural move has not been considered by the so-called theoreticians. White obtains now an appreciable advantage in development, no matter what Black replies."
Alexander Alekhine, 1937>
P.S. HB looks a bit like Christopher "Dracula" Lee ;0) >>> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2235602...
|Jan-27-12|| ||Penguincw: Happy Birthday (yesterday)!|
|Jan-27-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <After the moves:
1 d4 d5
2 c4 c6
"In my opinion this move gives White more chances of obtaining an opening advantage...">
Many play 3 Nf3 to avoid the complications of 3 Nc3 e5 4 de d4, even if it isn't quite sound.
|Jan-27-12|| ||King Death: <Marmot PFL> Most players were using 3.Nf3 before that gambit became popular as the result of this game: Karpov vs Bareev, 1992.|
|Jan-27-12|| ||waustad: I confess that for today's B'day I'd be hard pressed not to pick Captain Evans. Happy B'day to Hans Berliner too, but buckle my swashes matey!|
|Jan-30-12|| ||Hesam7: <Poisonpawns: Berliner crushes 12..Qa3 in Grunfeld in response to critics http://www.fortunecity.de/olympia/m>...|
Berliner's analysis did not stand the test of time. In fact Black' main line (10. Rc1 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qa5+ 12. Kf1 Qa3 13. Rc3 Qd6 14. h4 h5 15. f3 Rd8 16. Bd5 <e5!>) is missing from his analysis.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·