|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-05-17
 | | offramp: The croupier span the wheel.
The ball eventually landed in the black.
Huebner was not there, so the croupier said to Smyslov, "Which colour did you pick?" "Black", said Smyslov.
The croupier said, "Then you win".
And Smyslov went through to play Ribli. |
|
| Apr-05-17 | | Petrosianic: <Thus, during the first five games the match, it was not Hübner versus Smyslov, but Hübner versus Television.> Kavalek fails to explain, or even attempt to explain, how the TV cameras harmed one player more than the other. It comes off sounding like an excuse for the defeat in Game 4. |
|
| Apr-05-17 | | savagerules: Huebner getting his head rubbed during games. -And you wonder why the general public thinks chessplayers are weird? Regarding the roulette tiebreak it's odd they didn't come up with a fast time limit chess playoff like they do now. Doesn't seem too difficult to come up with that as a better tiebreak than a wheel spin. |
|
| Apr-05-17 | | Olavi: <Kavalek fails to explain, or even attempt to explain, how the TV cameras harmed one player more than the other.> It doesn't need explaining, Hübner's sensitivity is famous, as is his sticking to principles. For instance in Teesside 1975 he forfeited the last game because the round was started a couple of hours earlier than it stood in the original invitation half a year before. |
|
| Apr-06-17 | | Howard: As far as a roulette wheel being used to break the tie, bear in mind that the two players may have agreed to this method before the match--in other words, don't be so quick to blame the match organizers, if one didn't like this method. Personally, I'm not so sure that rapid chess games are necessarily a "better tiebreak" than a roulette wheel. The former method can obviously be extremely nerve-wracking, plus Hubner was known (as was Ivanchuk) for having weak nerves. Sure, a roulette wheel is just pure luck as far as breaking a tie. But rapid games also have a very high "luck" element. If the two players decided to spare their nerves and go with a roulette wheel, that may have been a wise decision. |
|
| Apr-27-17 | | zanzibar: It doesn't sound like Smyslov liked the tiebreak any more than Huebner (who supposedly was very opposed): From an 2003 interview with Smyslov:
<Q- But what predominates in chess: the divine or the satanic?Chess has something of the devil. I cant specify exactly what it is but I feel it intuitively. I think that the Ecclesiastics had every reason to consider chess a demonic game. Not only Christians held this opinion, chess was also banned in Iraq. Even today priests renounce chess. John Paul II used to be a confirmed chess player in his youth and even composed a three-move problem. But when he became the Pope, he gave up chess. My own experience shows that Devil fights God in chess as in real life, and the field of the battle is not the chessboard but in peoples hearts. I realized this after my match against Huebner that ended in a draw. Lots were cast for the winner, in a casino. It was the first time I had the feeling that I could not influence my own fate. Roulette was to decide the outcome and a golden ball was used to avoid magnetism. If the ball landed on a red number I would be the winner. A black number would give victory to Huebner. The ball was thrown and it fell on the zero, as in Dostoevsky. There was no winner. The ball was thrown again and this time it landed on the red number three (the first number of Pushkins famous three cards: three, seven, ace). I won the match in this way. Later it dawned on me that God had been fighting Satan in the casino and they had made a draw the first time. But, eventually, God won and sentenced Huebner to defeat. As far as I know there were good reasons: Huebners behaviour was incorrect during the match.> 2003 Chess Today
http://web.archive.org/web/20110424... |
|
| Aug-13-20 | | diagonal: A decision by chance in a game of skill:
https://de.chessbase.com/portals/3/... The photo link is taken from the cg. report by <Tabanus>, sitting top right: chief arbiter Willy Kaufmann, Switzerland, sitting as third from right: Vasily Smyslov. Robert Hübner, the victim of the roulette wheel at Velden Casino in the Candidate's Quarterfinal 1983, did not watch the scenario. According to the swiss chess weekly DIE SCHACHWOCHE no. 16/83, the roulette ball came extra from Vienna, it was a special golden one. Colour Choice as mentioned: Hübner got <Black>, Smyslov <Red> *no political talks please* |
|
Mar-21-24
| | offramp: <diagonal: ...According to the swiss chess weekly DIE SCHACHWOCHE...> I accidentally read that as "...the Swiss cheese weekly...". |
|
Mar-21-24
 | | Sally Simpson: What is amazing about the that incident and you could not have made it up is that on the first spin, as if too emphasis how ridiculous it had become, the ball landed on the '0' square and there had to be another spin. On the second spin the ball settled on red 3 and Smyslov was through to the next round. '0' means the house wins so I reckon whoever owned the roulette wheel should have gone through to the next round. |
|
Mar-21-24
| | offramp: According to the Swiss Cheese Weekly Hübner was not there. For the second time the croupier span the golden ball. Smyslov had chosen Black. As the ball span around he nervously muttered "Black black black black..." The golden ball landed in RED 3.
The croupier said to Smyslov, "Which colour did you choose?" Smyslov said, "Red."
Smyslov went through to the semi-finals. |
|
Mar-21-24
 | | HeMateMe: Are there any holes in that story? |
|
Mar-21-24
| | Sally Simpson: Odd Coincidence.
After posting the above I went out and saw in a charity shop a horse polo shirt in red with the No 3 on it. (50p) it rang a bell with the post so I bought it. https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... Next time I'm in Germany I'm going to wear it and sit outside Robert's house...on a horse. I think it is a horse polo shirt, it is a bit baggy chest wise, it may be a ladies hockey team top. |
|
Mar-22-24
| | Sally Simpson: Still in coincidence mode and the number 3. I went to the dog track and put £3 on dog number three in the third race....it came in 3rd. |
|
Mar-22-24
| | offramp: < Sally Simpson: ..."It may be a ladies hockey team top.> I bet they all have long, girly fingers. |
|
Mar-23-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Off Ramp,
Did a bit net surfing. It is a horse polo shirt. The badge next to the three is the same as this. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/... They go for £39.99 new so this one will be washed, pressed and E-Bayed for £9.99. Still playing the coincidence odds I've put 50p e/way on Red Rookie at the 14:30 Bangor. I do not think it has a chance. In the same shop I picked up 'The Chess Player's Bible' (both for 50p) and got a blog out of them. https://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-bl... I'll put the book on E-Bay as well (£5.99 - it cost £15.99 new) I gave it a mini review. The diagrams are awful. (Black to play, mate in two) https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... And I'm still chuckling about that computer I played. I was planning to nick a pawn and go into a pawn race when it suddenly gave me a Rook for nothing because it had seen a mate involving a Queen sac that I never saw. These things are too strong for their own good even when set on a low 15 seconds per move level. |
|
Mar-23-24
| | HeMateMe: I gave up about 20 years ago, when Fidelity had a 2400 rated computer game. This was back when chess computers were stand alone devices, not software. I paid about $400 for their top of the line computer. I couldn't even get a draw. The 'bots won. |
|
Mar-24-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi HeMateMe,
I think you are using it wrong. I have four of these stand alone machines. I play them at 30 seconds a move no more. I transfer the computers move to a full standard board and set, as per an OTB game and take it from there. I get a good game with a chance of winning. I know if I can spring a 6 move combo on it I should win (the horizon effect.) good practice and it keeps me off the streets. To complete the effect stick a picture of a famous player opposite you. This is me playing and beating David Howell https://web.archive.org/web/2011072... in a Danish Gambit. I won and David congratulated on a winning a good game. (My son does the voices.) |
|
Mar-24-24
| | HeMateMe: Hi Sally ! I could beat the fidelity machines for years. I bought my first one in 1980. By about 1995 I had their best machine, rated 2400 at tournament time controls. I set it at fastest speed, 5 seconds per move and still couldn't beat it. That was my Kasparov Deep Blue moment! Ha! Anyway, it sounds like you're master+ playing strength, much better than me. |
|
Mar-25-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi HeMateMe,
I cannot come close to beating these things if I play my normal gambling OTB style. Nor do I try and match them for speed or take them on at a tournament setting. I take my time, a lot longer than the machine and use it horizon effect to set up combo's (if and when I spot them) In that game I forced the computer to play Rb6 and found the mate it had seen. 
click for larger view1.g4+ 2.Qe5+ 3.Qg3+ and 4.Ne4 mate and I'm thinking if it had played Rb2-b6 instead of Rxf2+ then I would have seen that. But not the Queen sac the computer saw. 1.g4+ Kg4 2.Kg3 Rxd6 2.Nf4 mate. 
click for larger viewI missed that one. It does make you wonder what incredible positions these super-duper 4400 elo rated things are looking at and dismissing when scanning the millions of positions they look at. The sad thing is a few days before I had played over the game Schlechter vs Meitner, 1899 with the Queen sac and quiet King move and drooled over it. So it is now official. My learning days are over, this old dog cannot taught any new tricks. |
|
Mar-25-24
 | | perfidious: <Geoff>, in 2000 I picked up a copy of Fritz 5.32. For some reason I was able to beat it in blitz with the Yusupov/Rubinstein system. While more my style than yours, of course, facing human opponents it was never quite to my taste. I should also note that in anything else, I got slaughtered. As Black? Fuhgeddaboutit. Thoroughgoing calculating monsters, even then. |
|
Mar-25-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Perfidious,
I use to sell the stand alone machines for my living for 10 years 1983-1993. As White and using a creeping attack from the Stonewall that no human would allow was the way to beat them. Also you could catch them out with a low horizon when a passed pawn on a2 was ignored till it reached the 6th rank then the machine suddenly woke up and 'saw it.' but often too late. I never play the computer programs unless I can put the level quite low. NagaSkaki was one I played a lot at one time. I think we had over 100 games. https://nagaskaki.en.softonic.com/ but again never on screen. I took the moves from the screen onto a full sized board. |
|
Mar-25-24
 | | MissScarlett: Did you sell the TASC R30? |
|
Mar-25-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Miss Scarlett,
No, There were a few like it but not that one. my best seller was the Advanced Star Chess. https://www.chessprogramming.org/im... It was not too bad. I advised level 5/6 and using just one plug in piece to get the 'from and to' square and transferring the move to a standard sized board. (...and then sell them a standard sized set and board.) There is an advert in a 1980's computer magazine with a picture of me sitting next to another computer, I think it was from Texas Instruments. I had beaten it 7-0 but I'm there, selling my soul saying it is a very good machine. I got paid quite well for that advert. |
|
Mar-25-24
| | MissScarlett: How about the Kasparov RISC 2500? |
|
Mar-25-24
| | Sally Simpson: Does not ring a bell. I stuck mainly with the one above. A good mark up. I sold quite a lot of them. One of the players on RHP remembers me selling him one. Small world. I sold a few 'Phantoms' the machine that moved by itself as well. I did a few home demo's with that one. Yes people were actually allowing me into their houses to see a chess computer. The crazy 80's. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
