<Feeling and Being Felt in the Films of Ingmar Bergman> is the title of the paper I have to finish today. And I'm not changing the title so there.

<Bill> Good work!! I advise you to post every game you ever played, as well as your unfinished 9888 page autobiography and your grocer's list.

This is FROGSPAWN, man, not a tobacconist's!!

I'm not inclined to be as generous as you are towards the people who say such things. Do they have the slightest idea how strong the guy is?

OK, so he had the courage to play in a tournament where he's actually seeded last -- instead of the other 99.99% of tournaments in the world where he'd be the top seed -- and then people complain because he loses games? To me, this kind of complaining is just rank idiocy.

Rank idiocy. Heh. There's a joke in there somewhere, if I could find it.

A point I've made a few times, in various forums -- similar to your idea -- is that these 'fans' should try a little experiment. Get the games from a big open tournament like Gibraltar. See how the 2200 guys (and gals) smash up the 2000 'weaklings', and see how the 2000-rated weaklings conduct brilliant sacrificial attacks against the 1800 players. In the other direction, see the 2200 guys outplayed by the 2400 guys, who in turn are beaten comprehensively by the 2600 people. All is relative.

These super-tournaments confined to over-2700 types are flawed in various ways. The number of draws is necessarily higher, I think -- and the number of really first-rate decisive wins is quite small. And even at this level many games are decided by that Curse of Humanity, blunders in time trouble.

I have a book of a 1982 tournament in London, one of the strongest in the world that year. It's interesting to see who played, and what their ratings were.

Karpov (2720) and Andersson (2605) were joint 1st, followed by Seirawan (2575), Speelman (2550), Timman (2655) and Portisch (2630). Further down came Spassky (2625), Miles (2575), Geller (2545), Nunn (2590)... and Nigel Short (2430) in last place.

In the early 1980s, Karpov was the only player over 2700, with a bunch of elite players behind him on 2600+. Seems to me that -- at super-GM level -- there is clear ratings inflation of about 100 points.

Lower down, strange things have happened too. I get the impression that players in the 1600-2000 range are actually stronger now. Databases, engines and online play have raised standards.

But I don't agree that the top players are significantly stronger than those of a generation back. In some areas, like endgame play, they may actually be worse.

As for the whole business of seeing somebody as a rating, not as a person -- this is deplorable. It's not new, though. I remember an incident in the 1970s where an 1800 player refused to speak to a 'mere' 1300 who had drawn with him, and objected furiously when it emerged that the 1300 guy had been assigned the wrong rating in the tournament, and should 'really' have been about 1700. His argument, which he thought was perfectly reasonable, was that he played differently, thinking he was up against a 'patzer'.

I don't like that word, patzer -- even when people use it in a self-deprecating way about themselves, it seems to imply a built-in class system in chess.

Rant, rant. It's a complex issue. I *do* know that most of my past wins against high-rated opponents came from being fearless and not fazed by reputation or rating. If I start respecting them too much now, I'm in trouble.

When Tony Miles began to beat top Russian GMs regularly, people were amazed. Before that, one token win per career was the norm, and could be discreetly bragged about ("Yes, I beat Tal once, you know, gin and tonic, please..."). But Miles kept on doing it.

This tends to happen in bursts. We'll probably go right off the rails again soon. Though I must admit that focusing on chess attracts a wider range of weirdos...

Here is a nice (true) story on the "kid" van Wely

In Amsterdam we have the "Max Euwe center", terrific place! I frequently visited it in the 80's cause they have a huge, quality library and the best available first generation (?) comps, plus the people were very fiendly, which also counts for something. Anyway, the young van Wely visited it too sometimes and he would go and immediately sit behind the strongest comp (Mephisto with those beautiful sensory boards) and play blitz and MURDER it! I just couldn't believe my eyes when I once saw it *happen*.

He played Amber recently and made some very impressive wins there.. not aiming for a draw like some did.

On good days he has beaten all the top GM's, no exception if I'm correct.

<I don't like that word, patzer -- even when people use it in a self-deprecating way about themselves, it seems to imply a built-in class system in chess.> Bingo my man! Rank idiocy! Low self esteem etc.. Seriously, I think your remark is right on the nose. I even think that the van Wely's have a sort of subconscious thinking that makes them feel they *belong* in a certain category. Happens in all sports.. Just plain and simple psychology. I think Timman reached several winning middle-games in that candidate against Karpov but got nervous, didn't go for the jug so to speak, make couple of passive moves and allowed Karpov back in.. Some sort of blockade seemed to creep in.. Frustrating times those for me.

<Rant, rant. It's a complex issue. I *do* know that most of my past wins against high-rated opponents came from being fearless and not fazed by reputation or rating.> That's it! They miss things too! After all Miles and Timman did *rock* the Russians on numerous occasions!

<Jaymthetactician: I dont think there's a rating inflation, it's just that today's players are much stronger then the past. Evidenced by how the further back in time you go, the lower the world champion is rated. For example: If Botvinnik was 2500 later on, then Alekhine would only be rated around 2000 nowaday's, with Steinitz being about 1800, and Morphy being around 1500, Anderssen I think would 1300, while Philidor might be 1250.>

<chancho: Morphy 1500, Steinitz 1800.The World champion was rated 1800. If we could somehow build a time machine, then went to the past and played Steinitz, why, we all have a shot at becoming World Champion! Hey boys! the dream is still alive! Keep hope alive!>

<MoonlitKnight: Even without the opening knowledge of today I still think Morphy would come straight out of the time machine and smash strong players. Given a few months, he would probably become a GM.>

<azaris: If Philidor was put in a time machine and sent to our time, he would be a strong IM.

The mobile warbles the melody...

<Always look on the bright side of life.

Always look on the light side of life.

You did some thorough research! Feel a bit deflated after my original exaltation.. but you are very right.

I'd seen that 15..Bxb1 is the teaser that shouldn't be taken. Wojtkiewicz played Qe6 and went on to win the game. So that means that Tadic would have had an improvement in mind for white if he played homeprep'd.

I did see the earlier mate but that's irrlevant. Qa6 is indeed a perp.

My view is that if you enter such a sharp tactical sac feast and remember those motif OTB, beginning essencially witn 9.0-0, (you do not know the opponent deflecting along the way at any point), it is still very courageous and offers a lot of pleasure and insigt for any player like us to enjoy and do some good analysis

<Eyal: So I would say that the Tadic-Solak game chiefly demonstrates the importance of home preparation etc.> May be very likely, but, me being a romantic, see this as a beautifully constructed game. Not sure if homeprep covers it all.

Allowing Bxb1 to get control over the h3-c8 diagonal is a beautiful motif. If Tadic had done his homeprep well he would have known that black can draw or win on 2 occasions. (Qe6 and later Qa6..)

So was Tadic well or better prepared? Not sure -- we'd have to give the man a call to find the truth on that. ;-) Still a helluva game for me!

So... a memory show, with no 'real' moves played at all? Should it matter? Is it any different from, say, the fact that Andy Warhol didn't personally apply brush to canvas? And anyone with a Fritz could find the same combination?

It's an honour, sir/madam.

In chess, at least, where home preparation is concerned, we can distinguish different types. Falling into a tactical sideline of existing analysis (whether published or not) is one thing. Another is innocently playing a line believed to be good and being rocked by a genuine novelty.

One of my favorite examples of this is (in the French, naturally) Zaw Win Lay vs Khalifman, 2000. Zaw Win Lay played 18.Rad1, a 'new idea' which had been assessed as 'interesting' by such experts as Ivanov and Psakhis (though he retracts this in his latest book). It had been played twice in previous GM games, both won by white.

Khalifman: "This move has just one very little drawback -- it loses immediately." After 18...Rxd1 19.Rxd1 e5! Black remains a piece ahead.

A nice piece of homework by Khalifman, yes? More amazingly, 18.Rad1 has turned up a few times since then, even at GM level. Usually Black just rattles out the refutation, but I've seen one game between 2200+ players where neither was aware of it, and the game was drawn.