|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-10-05 | | SBC: If I'm not mistaken, Harald Ballo used to have quite a bit of information on the Saint-Amant/Staunton match on his site. <"Feu LÁbbé" ... simply indicates that he already had deceased ("Feu") when the 1807 Edition appeared> If someone is deceased when an incident occurs and French speakers indicate he is on fire (feu) while English speakers indicate he is merely detained (late), would it be safe to say that English speakers are just a bit more optimistic than French speakers? |
|
| Jan-10-05 | | vonKrolock: <SBC> Yes, in that particular point surely one would prefer to be late than fired :o) - - Speaking seriously: FEU for 'fire' comes from FOCUM; and for 'deceased', from FATUM - by the way the very same matrix from 'fatal', 'fatality' etc Both passages - from Bilguer and from l'Abbé Roman de Couvret's poem - contains only decameters <euripides> The best explanation for the fact that Pastor O. Koch quoted that passage whithout being able to name the Author is, indeed, that he extracted it from an Anonimous text... |
|
Jan-11-05
 | | BishopBerkeley: <Joshka> That king rule is rather odd! I wonder if it fell out of the rule book from lack of use or relevance? I think you are correct, it is not in the canon today, even as a dusty and rarely-invoked rule. By the way, the official FIDE rules may be seen here: http://www.fide.com/official/handbo... with this appendix:
http://www.fide.com/official/handbo... Here are a few interesting FIDE rules:
12.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or offers of a draw. 12.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent. 12.8 If both players are found guilty according to Article 12.7, the game shall be declared lost by both players. [Wow! Both players can LOSE!]
Back to the 1813 rules for a moment: if my reading was not too hasty, I don't believe en passant capture was allowed according to this set of rules. Of course, that would make quite a difference, given the emphasis on "Pawn chain Chess" that was a part of the theory of the time. In playing through some of the games that <SBC> has put online ( http://sbchess.sinfree.net/forgotte... ), I have noticed the number of occasions when en passant capture could have made a difference. There are not a few! (: ♗B :) |
|
Jan-14-05
| | BishopBerkeley: Thomas Jefferson, 1801: "I will pray you at the same time to send me Philidor on chess, which you will find in the book room, 2d. press on the left from the door of the entrance: to be wrapped in strong paper also." (Thomas Jefferson to TMR, 4 December, DLC) Source (a fine collection of primary quotes relating to Thomas Jefferson and Chess): http://www.monticello.org/reports/q...
Main website of Thomas Jefferson's famous home, Monticello: http://www.monticello.org/
(: ♗B :) |
|
Jan-28-05
 | | Joshka: <SBC> Any historical references about Beethoven by Philidor? I read on Bill Walls page that Beethoven played chess, I rather doubt it. Ludwig spent the majority of his life in Vienna. But Philidor was about 45 years his senior, pretty sure Beethoven would have known about Philidor's musical contributions. |
|
| Mar-18-05 | | Runemaster: <Rosewood> <Bishop Berkeley> Enjoy the music, but there was a whole family of Philidors who were composers - the one who composed the marches for Louis XIV would probably be Andre Danican Philidor, the father of "Chess Philidor" (Francois Andre etc) <Bishop Berkeley> the soprano piece you found is probably by Chess Philidor. |
|
| Mar-18-05 | | Runemaster: While I'm here, I have a chess-related question.
On this site there has been some discussion about world champions pre-Steinitz. GM Raymond Keene has looked into this question (including in a recent book) and he thinks the list can be extended back as far as De La Bourdonnais. However, Ray and others have cast doubt on Philidor's claims because he did not play against "The Italian School". I have tried to do some internet research on this question and not found anything. Can anyone tell me something about the Italian school of chess players in Philidor's day? Who were their most prominent players? I expect that none of their compete games have survived, but do we have any way of assessing their strength relative to Philidor's? |
|
| May-17-05 | | Runemaster: I obviously asked a tough one above - no answer in two months. Sorry to have killed off this page. |
|
| May-17-05 | | Jaymthetactician: Well, there is probably games from back then, they are just not in public circulation. |
|
| Jun-02-05 | | vonKrolock: <Runemaster:I have tried to do some internet research on this question and not found anything. Can anyone tell me something about the Italian school of chess players in Philidor's day? Who were their most prominent players? I expect that none of their compete games have survived, but do we have any way of assessing their strength relative to Philidor's?> Sorry for missing twice this interesting question: For the preserved material concerning
Chess researches by three masters from Modena (Ercole del Rio, Giambatista Lolli and Domenico Ponziani), one surely will conclude that, if someone could prove to be a match for the players from France, then he would probably be found in this Italian city, and not anywhere: Their works includes though analysis of Openings (that are outdated due to a particular way of castling in the Peninsula); a collection of puzzles - including combinations, endgames - some compiled, some composed by themselves; and very extensive comments on Philidor's published works: In this field we can presumably consider that they were, in a typical xviii-th Century way, fighting Philidor in a fair ground - the writings of the Masters from Modena surely influenced Chess researches in the following xix-th Century (specially in England and Germany), furnishing a healthy classical insight as oposed to Philidor's original, but sometimes too personal views
NOTE: That's my current impressions on the matter after consulting some off-line - i mean 'on-shelf' - writings, that can be improved or even changed if i arrive to actually read myself the available and original material
Sincerely, zk
|
|
| Jun-04-05 | | vonKrolock: The <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3> debate: Philidor opined that the Knight jump from g1 to f3 is <..."entirely wrong; because it not only loses the Attack, but gives it to the Adversary."> Ercole del Rio answered: <"The bold assertion <...> always surprised me"> - translations quoted by R. Keene in 'The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory'. Pergamon, 1985 well, if White can not play 2.Nf3, what he could try, according to Philidor?!
Maybe a King's Gambit - 2.f4 - it seems logical, but:
Philidor: <"On verra dans les Gambits, que ces sortes de Parties ne décident rien"> ...etc, a passage translated & adapted by Kenny in his "Practical Chess Grammar" London 1818 as: <"A gambit equally well played by both players is likely to prove indecise"> In a work from 1745, Stamma asserted: <"I think this is a mistake"> (note: the Gambits) Later (in 1782), Ponziani, evoking Stamma <"il valoroso Filippo Stamma d'Aleppo">, Salvio <"colle migliori Accademie d'Italia">, Ercole del Rio <"l'esatissimo Anonimo Modenese'>; and evoking even the French oposition to Philidor <"l'Accademia di Parigi"> - affirms that the Gambits are inferior openings <"giuoco pernicioso per chi lo tenta">
|
|
| Jul-11-05 | | farrooj: <chessgames> are you sure his death date is correct? he can't really play when he's dead. Is it his ghost that came back to play? |
|
| Jul-22-05 | | Leviathan: <vonKrolock:well, if White can not play 2.Nf3, what he could try, according to Philidor?!>
I can only guess but I think Philidor wanted to claim that the only logical answer to 1.e4 e5 is the Bishop's opening 2.Bc4. We don't have many games of his but we can notice from Philidor vs NN, 1749 (his only Bishop's opening with white on the database) that he doesn't play Nf3, probably to be able to push the pawn to f4 at any time. |
|
| Jul-22-05 | | vonKrolock: <Leviathan> Correct, You have a good point there... Note that my question was not reflecting my complete knowledge on the matter, nor my personal believing; but just a logical thread in that specific passage – Of course that the student who was following Philidor’s teachings would arrive to the revelation that 2.♗c4 is the most smart move after 1.e4 e5 |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Leviathan: btw the game I was referring to in my previous post is Philidor vs NN, 1749 :) |
|
| Jul-28-05 | | sfm: When Larsen was asked about "the greatest player ever" he named Philidor with the reason that "the only reasonable measurement I can think of is how much the masters were ahead of their time". For chess as art he named Bronstein, for chess as something profitable he named Fischer. |
|
| Jul-28-05 | | TruthHurts: <Sfm> and Kasparov is not there lol, he could had found a section to put him in at least ;)... |
|
| Aug-05-05 | | Runemaster: <vonKrolock> thank you for your response - I had given up hope of anyone trying to answer the question, so I didn't check here for a long time! Please post anything else you find on this point.
The materials you've posted are interesting, but I don't yet feel I need to revise my idea that Philidor was the greatest player of his era. |
|
| Aug-05-05 | | turkishgrandmaster: I can't believe there is only 22 games of Philidor! |
|
| Aug-05-05 | | jamesmaskell: Not many games would have survived. He may have been an incredible player but games were definitely lost due to the reports being lost or burned or simply not being recorded at all. I would have liked to see more games too. |
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: <SBC> lists five games of François André Philidor that may not occur in this database (along with the unusual Chess notation of that time, which I actually find quite elegant): http://sbchess.sinfree.net/XCII.html
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/XCIII.html
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/XCIV.html
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/XCV.html
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/XCVI.html
Her main "Forgotten Philidor" page:
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/forgotte...
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
| Aug-27-05 | | Gioachino Greco: If I could see one hypothetical chess match, it would be between Gioachino Greco and Philidor. The match would have it all--two contrasting styles, two evenly matched players of great historical interest, and the fact that both players absolutely dominated their era and both players' influence stretched far beyond their deaths. Philidor's pawn tactics and defensive wizardry would be the perfect foil for Greco's relentless, ingenious attacks. Despite over 100 years separating the two, there is not much difference in terms of their advantages: * Both faced similar levels of competition--the talent pools that opposed each player were very similar in size and quality.
* Both lived at the very beginning of chess theory. Neither one had very much theory to draw upon, so there wouldn't have been a disparity as there would with, say, Kasparov vs. Alekhine in knowledge of openings and so on. Greco and Philidor both built their styles from the ground up
* Neither one has a great stylistic advantage. While Philidor's style is somewhat more modern than Greco's, it was not so self-evidently superior that it managed to dominate subsequent eras in the way that Steinitz's theories were to do later.
* There was a great deal of debate in their time periods which method was superior. Both coexisted, as both the Calabrian book and Philidor's book were around at the same time. There was never a confrontation between two high-ranking exponents of the two styles. Seeing the inventors of the two different styles duke it out would be amazing, since they'd follow their respective game plans perfectly. What are your thoughts on the matter? |
|
| Aug-28-05 | | karnak64: This morning on New York's public radio station I heard for the first time one of Andre Philidor's musical compositions. It sounded rather ceremonial and courtly -- brass fanfares and all that, the sort of thing you'd expect to be played at a French royal event. Unless I wasn't paying attention (and perhaps I wasn't, as I lose many games 'cuz I don't), the announcer mentioned nothing of Philidor's role in the history of chess. A pity, c'est non? |
|
| Aug-30-05 | | Runemaster: <karnak64> See my first post above on 18 March this year about Philidor the composer; there was a whole family of musicians called Philidor, so the one you heard may not have been the chess player. |
|
| Aug-30-05 | | Runemaster: <Bishop> Thank you for pointing me to SBC's page with the extra Philidor games - it was a pleasure being able to play over some new games of his. However, I think that the only ones that are not in this database are the odds games against Masenet and Nowell. It would be great if we could get them loaded onto this database. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
