|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 268 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-13-07 | | Zebra: <His main idea was to make an analogy with language viewed synchronically or diachronically, and with langue vs parole, or performance vs competence (in post-Saussurean lingo).> You are right, of course. It's just that in the first case one effect of his analogy has been to downplay the relative importance of diachronic study (though this may not have been his intention). I sometimes like to bring up castling to make the point that some things in language only make sense diachronically (or are best understood diachronically). So it is a quibble with ulterior motives. |
|
| Nov-13-07 | | mack: <Maybe somebody closer, like <mack>, could go take a look.> Righto, I'll take one for the team and look on Friday. Do you want photographic evidence? |
|
| Nov-13-07 | | mack: A Tuesday morning quiz:
'...he would play chess with the unthinking directness of a fencer, and brilliantly.' Without googling, can you tell me a) who is being described and b) who the author is? |
|
Nov-13-07
 | | Domdaniel: <mack> Sounds just like my nephew, Christian aka Xtian, who spurned the chance to be the next Magnus Carlsen and became Junior Fencing King of greater Scandinavia instead. He says fencing can be quite like chess, and he says it in Danish so I can't quibble. Now, is there anyone *else*? |
|
| Nov-13-07 | | mack: Just came across this in a deranged article, W.K. Wimsatt, 'How to Compose Chess Problems, and Why', Yale French Studies No.41: Game, Literature and Play (1968). I fly-tip without comment in the hope that it might reignite the chess/language debate that I was enjoying: 'Language as an expressive apparatus of the human spirit, a partly conventional system of symbols, is... parallel to the rules or norms of chess. An act of knowing and saying in language is parallel to a move in chess. The rules of chess are its language. Opponents in a game of chess carry on a kind of conversation with each other, or an argument. It is unlike verbal argument, however, in this respect: In chess, absent minded contradictions and double-talk can be called to account - promptly and strictly.' |
|
Nov-13-07
| | Domdaniel: <mack> Imagine a parallel universe, much like ours but a bit more Nabokovian. People join chess clubs, where problem composers compare notes while the more eccentric 'players' play out entire games, not seeming to mind which themes they express as long as they win. Oddballs, obviously. Composing chess problems is a major part of adolescence. Every young lad has mooned over a Meredith while thinking of Nessie in 4B, and how mate with two bishops somehow captures the essence of Nessie's spectacular, er, orbs. Meanwhile, the girls sigh deeply among themselves, enviously working through the deeply mature endgame study which Nessie got from a senior on Valentine's Day (along with a pin-up photo of the great composer, Grandmaster Valentin himself). Then, one day, some nerdish anarchist makes a revolutionary suggestion: why not do it with words? Instead of composing two-movers and exchanging deep analysis, why shouldn't young lovers write down their feelings, using words with similar endings and a regular metrical beat? If done really well, he suggests, this 'poetry' might even have something of the formal beauty and conceptual rigour of a chess problem (though clearly it can never match it for expressiveness and breadth of reference). Such a quaint idea! How utterly abstruse! Girls and boys, young lovers, actually playing with words? Ridiculous. They laughed and laughed. But young 'Winker' Wimsatt had his revenge. He grew up, became a Professor of Meredith Studies and Applied Chessometry (where would modern medicine be without the X-Ray machine, first conceptualized in a classic problem with the X-Ray theme?). And he wrote a book about 'poetry', with actual examples. This time nobody laughed. He got 15 years to life for corrupting the student body, gross moral turpiloquence, and making lewd suggestions to his inner child. Chess is not only deeper than poetry, it's also safer. And so what if Saint Nimzo wasn't a 'real person' -- it makes a lovely story for the kiddies. How many millions of young eyes have shed a tear over The Immortal Zugzwang? |
|
Nov-13-07
| | Domdaniel: <mack> -- <that fencer> -- Guessing games again... I don't suppose it's Nabokov? No, the style's all wrong, chessically speaking. A fictional character, then? Possibly one from classic detective fiction. I'll try Sherlock Holmes. Or - a long shot - the arch-criminal, a nemesis-turned-friend ('converted') in Chesterton's Father Brown stories -- <Flambeau>, n'est-ce pas? Or plain old Marcel Duchamp, Marshal of the Field ... ? |
|
| Nov-13-07 | | twinlark: ok...i'll shut up now... |
|
Nov-13-07
| | Domdaniel: <twinlark> No need to go *that* far, surely? You must be one of the more popular canines to visit Frogspawn (Canines? Another sign of universal decay. Where have our molars gone?) Anyway, it's your shout.
Emory O'Dungbat, PhD
Professor of Molar Philsophy
Skibberakilty Universty College Killarney |
|
Nov-13-07
| | Domdaniel: ... unless you all had a BIG FIGHT while I wasn't looking? And deleted the evidence, of which only this sorry ember remains. It's EMBER day, when we celebrate those who fell in the Flame Wars, even if they tripped on their shoelaces and got shredded by friendly fire... |
|
| Nov-14-07 | | achieve: White to play and win
click for larger view<Dom> Please have a go at this gem. There are some delightful subtleties and a wonderful theme, hidden in this... way beyond my- and my engine's horizon... The solution is in my forum so: " Niet spieken, o grote Leider." |
|
Nov-14-07
 | | Open Defence: so The Pogues were The Kisses... oohh sold out did they ? |
|
| Nov-14-07 | | mack: Just in case any of you still care, the snippet below was T.E. Lawrence writing about King Feisal in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Happy now? |
|
Nov-14-07
| | Domdaniel: <mack> That's the snippet 'above', actually. I still do things the old-fashioned non-arseways way, with new posts appearing at the end. If only because they recommend the opposite. But, yes, Aircraftman Shaw, fine, cool, wouldn't have got it in a million years, and yes, happier certainly, thank you. |
|
Nov-14-07
| | Domdaniel: <Deffi> -- <sold out did they?>
They did, the bums. |
|
| Nov-14-07 | | twinlark: <I still do things the old-fashioned non-arseways way, with new posts appearing at the end. > me 3 |
|
| Nov-15-07 | | achieve: <Dom> I posted some state of the art stuff at la reine's house on the crazy wild gambit you introduced. Capice?
Eau reservoir,
Sline |
|
Nov-15-07
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> I haven't got anywhere with your white-to-play-and-win 'gem', except to say: Two options stand out. Either blockade the black pawns with Ng1 and Nf3, then work the white king towards the pawns and/or the centre; or give up the knight for a pawn and win the pawn ending. The first plan seems to run into trouble at once: 1.Ng1 Kd2 and white has no king moves. So 2.Nf3+ Kd3 3.Ke1 Ke3 and we're not getting anywhere. Maybe a knight move now, but this just doesn't feel like the winning line. Back to the start. What about 1.Nxg3 fxg3 2.Ke1 ... nope, that's a draw, opposition or no opposition. So is taking the other pawn. Hmm. Anything else? It would be nice to play 1.Nc1 to keep the black king out of d3. Sadly, black just replies 1...f3. Draw. No, it looks like only the 1.Ng1 plan can win, but I don't see how. Maybe going Nh3 instead of Nf3? Or Nf3 first and then Nf3-g5-h3, so that the black king can't simultaneously guard the Pf4 and keep the white king penned up? Maybe... I won't look at the solution yet, but I'll let you tell me if I've come even remotely close... like, a hint, please? PS. I've also been too busy to produce those Belgrade Gambit lines chez Jess, but I'll get back to it, honest... |
|
| Nov-15-07 | | achieve: <Dom> <No, it looks like only the 1.Ng1 plan can win, but I don't see how.> That - Ng1 - is the way to go - the idea is to ...either get the White king to e2/d2 - even at the cost of a Knight let's say at c2 - as the endgame will be won for White ...or
If the Black king keeps to his plan to have the White king tied to the first rank, he'll allow a Knight+King manoever that will lose him the f4-pawn... That is what I will give you for now...
It is very subtle and involves 10+ moves (from memory) |
|
Nov-15-07
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> Without reading your last post -- in the meantime I found a ridiculous line with a long knight dance, which can probably be shortened. But my version goes like this: 1.Ng1 Kd2 2.Nf3+ Kd3 3.Ke1 Ke3 4.Nh4 Kd3 5.Ng6 Ke3 6.Ne5 Ke4 7.Nc4 Kd3 8.Nd2 Ke3 9.Nf3 Kd3 10.Kf1 Ke3 11.Ne1 Kd2 12.Nc2!
... white wins easily after 12...Kxc2 13.Ke2 Kc3 14.Kf3 Kd4 15.Kxf4 etc. And if the knight is not taken, 12...Kd3 13.Ke1 and the white king gets out - which I'll assume wins. I have no idea whether the long knight tour is necessary... Now I've read your post. Hmm... |
|
Nov-15-07
| | Domdaniel: <Niels>... a slightly simpler version goes: 1.Ng1 Kd2 2.Nf3+ Kd3 3.Ke1 Ke3 4.Ne5 Ke4 5.Nc4 Kd3 6.Nd2 Ke3 7.Nf3 Kd3 8.Kf1 Ke3 9.Ne1 Kd2 10.Nc2 ... and off we go, as before. I'd been looking for a way to sac the knight to lure the black king away. It doesn't work on c4 as he gets back to defend his pawns in time. It took me a while longer to find c2, but I found it before I saw the hint. Otherwise why would I invent such a convoluted version as my first knight tour 'solution'? |
|
| Nov-15-07 | | achieve: <Dom> You're very warm - in fact hot... The tempo involving Kf1 and Ne1 manoevre is indeed the key... If your line offers the best defense for Black I would have to look into, but you have grasped the essence of this position. Better go have a look at the attempt of mine to convey the solution- which was explained by the canstein YouTube video link I posted - over at my forum... I do have the utmost respect for your effort- and (what surely would be) the solution of this puzzle! Less moves are involved in canstein's explanation in the video btw - but even at this point I am having trouble understanding this position fully- with ALL the subtleties... |
|
| Nov-15-07 | | achieve: Ah... I posted while you added your second... |
|
Nov-15-07
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> I see what you mean about subtleties... I'm still not clear myself exactly why it works the way it does. You're not supposed to be able to lose a tempo with a knight, as you can with other pieces. And the white king has no room for a triangulation maneuver... but the right sequence of knight and king moves forces black to triangulate, a tempo vanishes, and voila. Nice one. |
|
Nov-16-07
 | | jessicafischerqueen: Whew just caught up on my "back issues" of Frogspawn=- a bewildering array of topics, as usual. What is the date?
Anyone know?
I have it here on my new computer but, of course, it's in Korean. They told me not to buy one here cuz of the <blue screen of death> but my old one blew up and whatttya gonna do? Plus If I don't learn Korean while I'm here that's just lazy. Oh hang on I am lazy.
OK never mind.
Carry on gents! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 268 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
