|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-17-17
 | | FSR: He died on January 13. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/... |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | savagerules: Berliner was the left handed version of Weaver Adams who famously said 1 e4 and wins. Berliner said 1 d4 and wins. Some years ago he did a lengthy analysis which he claimed busted the Gruenfeld forever but overlooked a rather simple resource for Black around move 15 or 16 that destroyed all his analysis. He also said back in the early 1960s he tried to talk Fischer into playing 1 d4 by showing him some of his analysis. |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | Everyone: RIP CC World Champion Hans Berliner
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for <Everyone> drops to zero. |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | Eastfrisian: R.I.P. Master Berliner. |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | Howard: If I remember correctly, the late Larry Evans said in his CL column many years back that Berliner--among others--suspected that the initial starting position was probably a forced win for White, and that computers would eventually find that "win". As for Everyone's comment, who was it who said, "In the long run, we're all dead." ? |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | todicav23: RIP Hans Berliner. I remember reading somewhere that he started a PhD when he was 40 years old and he finished it at 45. He is an example that people can achieve great things later in life. |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | wordfunph: rest in peace, master Hans. |
|
| Jan-17-17 | | cro777: "Hans Berliner won the 5th World Correspondence Chess Championship, which began in 1965 and lasted three years. His margin of victory in the final was the largest in history: his final score was 14.0/16 (twelve wins, four draws), three points ahead of any opponent. But it was the game Estrin vs Berliner, 1965 from the Championship that followers of chess particularly remember. Andy Soltis ranked the game No. 1 in his book 'The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century'(2000)." https://en.chessbase.com/post/hans-... R.I.P. International Master and Correspondence Grandmaster Hans Berliner, a legend of correspondence chess, and a pioneer in chess programming. He built the first machine that exceeded 2400 Elo points. |
|
Jan-17-17
 | | wwall: I added a Berliner bio to my chess page at http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/a... |
|
Jan-20-17
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: RIP, Champion. According to crawfb5's game collection, Berliner won his qualifying section 6-0 and his semifinal 11.5-0.5. If my calculations are correct, that means he won the WCC with 29 wins, 5 draws--and 0 losses. Yikes. |
|
Jan-20-17
 | | chessgames.com: I had a brief encounter with Mr. Berliner that, to me, spoke volumes. Back in 2009 or so, my partner Alberto Artidiello gave me a copy of "The System", claiming that it was must-read material for any chess player. I ended up reading it at least twice, and gained great appreciation for the man. Then I came to learn that he lived only a half hour drive away from me in West Palm Beach, Florida. So I called him on the phone, explaining what Chessgames is, and enquiring if he would be willing to be a participant in the Chessgames Challenge. Sadly, he explained that he doesn't play chess any more due to health issues. I clarified that he would be able to use computers for assistance, and made it clear that he would be financially compensated. What impressed me is that he didn't even stop to ask "how much?" — he simply said that he didn't believe that his chess would be as good as possible. I will cherish that well-thumbed book, until I too pass it on. You will never be forgotten, Hans Berliner. |
|
| Jan-20-17 | | Ironmanth: Thank you, Grandmaster, for your wonderful contribution to our game, and for your fighting spirit in life to believe and achieve. RIP, Mr. Hans Berliner. |
|
| Aug-13-18 | | swampdragon: I encourage everyone to read Mr. Wall's bio of Berliner at the link he provided. Although his pioneer status in computer chess is probably objectively more impressive, I mostly remember picking up Chess Reviews decades apart and seeing Berliner still sitting on top of the correspondence rankings, with no one else within a light year of him. |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | Check It Out: An interesting anecdote about today's player of the day from site founder Daniel up a couple posts. |
|
| Jan-27-23 | | stone free or die: In the bio it says
<[Berliner's] controversial book The System describes his rigorous and scientific approach to chess analysis.> I'm not exactly sure that it's common knowledge why the book is <controversial>. I can't think why at the moment, I must admit. Shouldn't the bio offer at least a hint as to why the book should be considered controversial? . |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | perfidious: <CIO>, indeed it is. <zed>, I have not the slightest idea why Berliner's work was, or is, considered 'controversial. |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Perfidious,
It had a few 'iffy' reviews but seems to have hit the spot with some players. This is typical from what I've heard.
"i enjoyed reading the system.I'm not sure if it's a good book or not but ,i suspect unintentionally,it's very funny.Mr Berliner's ego runs away from him and tramples everything into dust!" Hans Berliner (kibitz #56) I seem to recall it getting a biffing from John Watson (whose reviews I trust) or maybe it was Silman (whose reviews were so-so). Was there not a touch of the Weaver Adams about it with 1.d4 should always win and after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 is not the best move. (don't quote me on that, but it's something like that.) I've not read it. I've had in my hands but put it down and picked up something else instead. |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | fredthebear: Berliner claimed to have refuted half-a-dozen common defenses to 1.d4 2.c4. His book was the precursor to bead vibrations plied by Hans Niemann. Berliner's "The System" appears to be outdated now. Stockfish is now claiming that the Colle System is superior to the Queen's Gambit: P Maghsoodloo vs Carlsen, 2023 I'd say that qualifies as controversial.
Perhaps when Zanzibar is done reading The System (rolls his eyes), or maybe just the introduction, Z will report his thoughts and findings in this column to humor us. For serious players, I'd recommend Fischer's M60MG before Berliner's book. Club players might find Attacking with 1.e4 by John Emms, or Starting Out: King's Indian Attack by John Emms serve the average Joe better in the short run. How about the Woodpecker Method, anyone? |
|
Jan-27-23
 | | saffuna: Berliner's "The System" was eviscerated in "Inside Chess," I think by Joel Benjamin. The fundamental objection was that it was simply not possible to present a winning strategy for white in less than 200 pages. The reviewer pointed utmany responses by black that Berliner did not consider. |
|
| Jan-27-23 | | stone free or die: <"Probably last year's most controversial opening publication" - NEW IN CHESS "Berliner believes the best opening move is 1.d4 and that with correct play, White can build on his half-move advantage to achieve a winning position against certain openings. .. I may never be able to emulate Berliner's system of thinking, but I did find it applicable and beneficial in terms of positional analysis" - Mark Donlan, CHESS HORIZONS> http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Th... OK, maybe the editor was copying the NIC quote, and while Fischer (and others) might disagree that 1.d4 is White's best opening, it's not that controversial. Mixed reviews doesn't make a book controversial to me, maybe the bio should just simply state his book had widely divergent reviews, if that was what was meant. OTOH - Tim Harding, who knows not to use "controversial" without backing it up, does offer this elaboration: <In 1999 Berliner’s last book, The System: a World Champion’s Approach to Chess, was published in London by Gambit, arousing considerable controversy among reviewers. In this book, Berliner started off by saying things like: “The System is a theory of how to integrate board control and development into a unified whole… White must do something to wring concessions from Black even as they are both trying to complete their development… The fact that Black has a very bad position after <1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5> and after <1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5> certainly does not [instill] much faith in Black’s ability to find a satisfactory defensive set-up.”> http://www.chessmail.com/xtras/berl... If this is what the bio is referring to, then a footnote to Harding would be required, imo. Sidenote- Using <Millbase> and SCID tree explorer, the stats for the QGD xchg variation has White scoring 65%, which seems to back Berliner up in practice! |
|
Jan-27-23
| | saffuna: My impression from the review I read is that the book made outlandish claims about "The System." It could well be a good system, but to claim it was winning, or at least led to a solid advantage, is just not possible in 200 pages. Berliner apparently simply omitted all kinds of good defenses for black. <The fact that Black has a very bad position after <1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5> and after <1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5> certainly does not [instill] much faith in Black’s ability to find a satisfactory defensive set-up.”> Now I would say that's a pretty controversial claim. He's saying black should not allow the Queen Gambit's Exchange variation? The opportunity comes up at the highest levels every day, and white usually does not play cxd5. He's saying the Grunfeld "does not instill faith"? The world's best players play the Grunfeld. |
|
| Jan-27-23 | | stone free or die: Well <saff>, I like writing that helps the reader along. My main point is that the "controversial" statement is a bit cryptic - especially more so as the bio has aged. Reversing the clauses shows the contradiction more clearly: <Berliner's rigorous and scientific approach to chess analysis is described in his controversial book <The System> > A rigorous and scientific approach is controversial?!? Maybe on Rogoff -ha! But here if leaves one wondering why. |
|
Jan-27-23
| | saffuna: <A rigorous and scientific approach is controversial?!?> A rigorous and scientific white repertoire in less than 200 pages? A. Players have ignored it since it was published. B. It doesn't do what it claims to. |
|
| Jan-27-23 | | stone free or die: <saff> I can only conclude you're a published author, which is the only explanation I can come up with for this pagecount obsession! Just curious, how many pages do you think would be required? As for (A), that does make a book controversial. If anything, it might suggest it just the opposite. As for (B), you've just targeted about 90% of the contemporary published chess literature, haven't you? . |
|
Jan-27-23
| | saffuna: <Just curious, how many pages do you think would be required?> To present a winning plan for white (or at least gaining a solid advantage) from move one? Thousands of pages.
Elite chess players are result-oriented, do we agree? If Berliner had actually presented as good an opening system for white as he claimed to, everyone would be playing it today. But believe me, whoever reviewed it for "Inside Chess"--it must have been Benjamin or Donaldson--really, really hated it. As I remember, repeating myself, the primary complaint was that the book was not nearly detailed enough, did not have deep enough varations, to justify Berliner's claims. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
