|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-01-06 | | square dance: its an interesting discussion, this possible myth busting of that situation. im not sure exactly what happened, but im always open minded on the subject. thanks for the info. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | madlydeeply: By the way, positionalgenius, if you need some perspective to appreciate Euwe, he was not a professional player. He had that glorious drive to the top, beating Alekhine, which makes him one of the fourteen immortals stretching from Steinitz to Kramnik. Afterwards he stewarded FIDE so one might say he has outstripped the other champions in his service to chess. He was not a professional nor had lasting career but in 1935 he had a glorious year it should not be belittled. And it wasn't any fluke victory over Alekhine, he beat him nine times in thirty games, it was a seriously gruelling match. I used to think lowly of Euwe but not anymore he had an incredible achievement for an amauter chess player. Of course Capablanca was a better player.
I think I sanctify the title of WC over the players. The history of the WC is one of the most important threads defining chess. Euwe's short moment as WC is indicative of the state of chess in the 1930s, economically depressed time, the greatest player (Capablanca) struggling for money and recognition...also Euwe prepared his openings, prepared them for Alekhine, which is also an important step in the development of chess, scientific opening preparation for a specific opponent. This tradition was started by Lasker, stopped for a moment by Capablanca whose genius did not require preparation...tradition continued by Alekhine, reinforce by Euwe, Botvinnik etc. onto Fischer and the most prepared player on earth Kasparov. So one could even make the argument that Euwe's little blip of a WC shocked Alekhine and all others following into understanding that not only innate talent allows one to be a WC but scientific preparation is also essential. So hey, Euwe wasn't so bad. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | euripides: <key> inflation affects the rate of change of prices not their level. In some countries they knock zeros off after a hyperinflation, but I don't think the Us has ever done this. So I think $10,000 was a large amount of money in 1922. |
|
Aug-01-06
 | | Honza Cervenka: <So hey, Euwe wasn't so bad.> Neither Bogo was. Alekhine was superior but Bogo was able to shoot back quite often. His personal record with Capa was horrible but he still managed to finish twice ahead of Capa in great international tournaments. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | ughaibu: He even managed to finish ahead of Lasker, once. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | ughaibu: Sorry, he finished ahead of Lasker too twice. |
|
Aug-01-06
 | | keypusher: <euripides> Thanks. I understand that there was actual deflation in the US after the Crash, so that a dollar was worth more in 1932 than in 1929 (if you could only get your hands on one!). I thought there might have been something similar in the early 1920s--I know the mark collapsed in 1923. I remember seeing a picture of a 3 billion mark note. Say, whatever happened to hyperinflation and deflation? Why doesn't that sort of thing seem to happen anymore? |
|
Aug-01-06
| | Honza Cervenka: If we are talking about "second rate" players' brilliancies, I really like this one: Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1929 :-D |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | madlydeeply: Hyperinflation does not happen in the USA because of the Federal reserve, which controls interest rates as well as the money supply. The Fed was created in 1913 and still learning its power in the thirties, plus there were US banks still that were not in the federal reserve system and rumor has it amongst conspiracy buffs that the fed was attempting to isolate them and make them close. So the depression in the USA was caused by a run on banks followed by closures etc. Now when banks fail, the Fed intervenes, either bailing the banks out (but this is described as bailing out a country, not the banks giving bad loans) or closing the bank but allowing other banks to carry the loans. This sort of intervention wasn't in place yet in the 1930s so banks just closed up and people lost their money. A scenario which could have ended up in multiple bank failures was the S&L bailout of the 1980s, but money was printed and accounts were protected so the only affect was the inflation of the dollar by the amount of the bailout. I think this sort of thing only works as long as plenty of wealth is flowing into the country, though, when that happens its easier to tweak currency supply. Hyperinflation in Germany in the 1920s was the result of the treaty of Versailles...France and Britain took away all the German manufacturing equipment, in addition Germany was responsible for paying the Allies war debt. Britain and France owed US bankers and so did Germany. So Germany was forced to take on debts beyond their means while her ability to manufacture wealth was stripped away. The central bank of Germany in isolation attempted to tweak the moneytary supply resulting in hyperinflation, but I have read in certain places that hyperinflation did result in some kind of economic startup but I am not an economist and also I am too lazy to figure that out. I am pretty sure the economic situation finally turned better after Hitler took over and started manufacturing arms. Hitler was "TIme Magazine" man of the year a couple of times because of this economic turnaround. This is Keynsian theory I believe, government investing into industry using deficit spending in order to create jobs. Ironically when Bush increases defense spending and reduces taxes and believes he is creating jobs, this is liberal economic theory and yet he is described as a conservative. Reagan, Bush, and Bush had more Liberal economics, while Clinton was more conservative. As the Dane says in my favorite movie "Millers Crossing": Up is Down. Black is White. |
|
Aug-01-06
 | | WannaBe: <madlydeeply> One minor correction, Hitler was only 'Man of the Year' once, 1938. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | positionalgenius: <Madlydeeply>interesting comments about the WCC and its history.In response to <Square Dance>and<Honza Cervenka>I am sorry but Capablanca was the strongest challenger until 1938,not Euwe or Bogo.Alekhine dodged Capa because he knew Capa was the only player who was truly better than him.Now I will probably draw the ire of <Honza Cervenka> with these comments,but thats ok.Square Dance,Madlydeeply,Ughaibu,and Euripides thanks for the comments. |
|
Aug-01-06
| | keypusher: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Mont... . Probably Euwe, Botvinnik, Keres and Fine (but certainly not Bogoljobov) were stronger challengers than Capablanca by 1938. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | madlydeeply: i love hearing feedback about economic stuff there is always a "yes, but...." involved. |
|
Aug-02-06
 | | Gypsy: < Probably Euwe, Botvinnik, Keres and Fine (but certainly not Bogoljobov) were stronger challengers than Capablanca by 1938. > It seems that beginning with Semering '37, Capablanka was no longer Capablanca. (Sorry for torturing the language.) |
|
| Apr-12-07 | | Ulhumbrus: The result of White's advantage in space was that White's King was able to advance further than Black's. |
|
| Apr-12-07 | | RookFile: I see that some people got excited with my comment that Spassky is stronger than Karpov right now. I could also have said that John McEnroe is stronger than Jimmy Connors right now. Who cares? The point is, you're talking about retired players, past their prime. |
|
Jul-11-09
 | | HeMateMe: Seriwan said "Boris likes to work with small advantages." I guess this is in play here, very instructive in how to play an endgame with opposite pawn majorities. In the middle game it looks like a dead draw. Looks like a better king for Spassky, and black's partially blocked Bishop finish karpov. |
|
| Dec-06-09 | | A Karpov Fan: wow, amazing that Spassky could win this endgame against Karpov. Shows that a mobile 3 to 2 pawn mass is not to be discounted under any circumstances. |
|
| May-27-11 | | TheMacMan: spassky owns karpov. |
|
| Jun-27-13 | | Schlechter: in this game maybe but not overall |
|
| Aug-06-15 | | maelith: <TheMacMan: spassky owns karpov.> What????
Classical games: Anatoly Karpov beat Boris Spassky 14 to 2, with 23 draws. |
|
| Aug-06-15 | | saturn2: @maelith Classical games: Anatoly Karpov beat Boris Spassky 14 to 2, with 23 draws. The superiority of Karpov over Spassky was higher than that of Fischer over Spassky. From this one might conclude Karpov was stronger than Fischer. The conclusion contains some speculation of course but I tend to think so. |
|
| Aug-06-15 | | john barleycorn: <saturn2> yes, I think that was Karpov's main motivation when playing Spasski. And many would follow your reasoning if "stronger than" was a transitive relation in chess which it is not. But nothing wrong with speculations it is the bread and butter for us kibitzers. |
|
| Aug-06-15 | | Olavi: In fact Spassky won only one classical game. The 1982 Hamburg win was in a one hour TV-tournament. |
|
Mar-19-24
 | | gezafan: When you have the inferior side of a 3-2 pawn majority you are supposed to avoid trading off too many pieces as it increases it's advantage. For whatever reason Karpov does this. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
