Kamsky vs Karpov, 1996

Bologan vs Kramnik, 1992

Judit Polgar vs Gelfand, 2006 (blitz)

Judit Polgar vs Gelfand, 2009 (blitz)

Sutovsky vs N McDonald, 1998

[Event "TCh-CRO"]
[Site "Rabac CRO"]
[Date "2004.09.05"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Fercec, Nenad"]
[Black "Kovacevic, B."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C10"]
[WhiteElo "2474"]
[BlackElo "2478"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[EventDate "2004.09.05"]

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2... (this link is fake)

I CAN STILL BECOME WORLD CHAMPION

Our own CG <Polarmis>, who moderates and owns that site, provides as a translator/writer a treasure trove for us chess enthusiasts.

On a different note I can't help bur review and bring up briefly again a reviewer's note on the Ferrara Addiction flick, examplifying my individual "take" on films in general (and this one in particular, negatively, after say 15-20 mins) disregard and criticism of most if not all reviews. Here an exception:

< Ferrara, "maverick" as he is or claims to be, thinks and feels no differently about the commodity: "intelligence" then the most vulgar mainstream director. To him as to the peddler of Hollywood trash, "intelligence" is something that can be ordered up simply by slapping together whatever ingredients are recommended as being "the right stuff if you're into that sort of thing". (This betting on "heavy reps" in these matters is also the reason why US cinematic portraits of "intellectual life" tend to lag, on average, about thirty years behind the times. The very idea that Sartre and Kierkegaard should be the "burning topics" of intellectual discussion at the philosophy department of a New York university in 1995 - where any student who took him- or herself even halfway seriously would have been at grips rather with Derrida and Foucault and would have laughed at the mere mention of existentialism - betrays the "philosophy" of this movie as "philosophy for tourists".

In short, an unforgivably awful movie - and another reason to shake one's head in wonder at how a relentlessly self-promoting quarter-educated New York hipster like Ferrara has succeeded in hoodwinking such a huge proportion of the cinematic establishment.>

Perhaps an overly long quote, yet I dare nod in agreement, and understand that the Walken 10min Cameo somehow must have raised this film to another level for you, among the visuals as you explained, but I do not share your over-view, admitting though to being a huge Chris Walker fan. Weakness thing. In part.

In essence I think it showcases the difference between Beta's, Alpha's, and Artists, and the measuring stick "we" use to tend to explain, deem and interpret things in the world around us.

But here's the link to <Polarmis>' 5/5 stars site, and the 'I Can Still Become World Champion' -interview translation:

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2...

I read the Ivanchuk interview. Wonderful. The paradigm human being. Or do I mean paragon? I'm forgetting my po-mo jargon, sorry, discourse, already.

Innaresting point, that, about the dated way that 'intellectual' qualities are treated in films. There are exceptions, but they're small and obscure. Hollywood gets it wrong.

But Hollywood always gets details wrong, and it knows, and it doesn't care. On any given topic, the people who notice the discordancy are a small minority.

It's like the way that any movie set in Holland or Ireland (or wherever) serves up a fictional stereotype, somewhere between painfully funny and just painful. I've said this to directors such as Ron Howard, and got either a blank look or a condescending chuckle. So a few clog-wearers and potato-eaters will be upset? So what? It's far more important to confirm the stereotypes of the mass audience.

The same may even be true of movies set in the USA. Movie geography is always fake.

As for Derrida and co, I think they were on the way out by 1995. Their cutting edge moment was '75-'85, approx. By the 90s, it was Baudrillard. The Slav thinkers, notably the Slovenian Zizek, were starting to be read. And there was actually a brief retro-fashion for existentialism, though I doubt whether anyone much noticed.

I know one 90s philosophy graduate who can talk Sartre all day. He doesn't seem particularly damaged in other ways, however.

First time around, circa 1975, I shared a flat with a copy of Being and Nothingness and its owner (Sartre was still regarded as movie shorthand for the intellectual pinnacle then - even Woody Allen made jokes about him).

But I have a broader theory about these Hollywood codes and conventions, whether for places or people (Einstein = genius, Ireland = green countryside, Geneva = banking, usw). They form a cinematic language which the mass audience expects. Any attempt to undermine them (an urban Irish film, say) will crash and burn.

Spookily close. I actually made this point to Ron twice, on different occasions. The first time, he said "Huh?" and the second time, he said "Huh, huh".

First time, he was shooting 'Far and Away' in Ireland, with Tom Cruise and Nic Kidman. Dodgy accents and historical errors aside, it didn't work because of the difference between emigration and immigration. The Irish cast and crew thought it was about the tragedy of emigration, the trauma of leaving your ancestral home. The Americans thought it was about the triumph of immigration, of making a fresh start in a new country.

After that you get a fine game. The Nc6 does sterling work covering b8 and other infiltration points. I was highly amused by the way, when move 25 arrives, both sides obviously decide it's time to do something about those weak back ranks. You play the eminently sane ...h6, he comes up with 26.Kf1.

Of course Black's extra pawn is enough to win those positions, but who can resist a chance like ...Nfd4 ...? Nice.

Strange, sometimes, the ideas White players come up with to counter the Ba6/b5 LSB-exchange plan. One of my recent opponents, with a decent rating of about 2000, played the eccentric Ra2, with the idea of clearing his 2nd rank and using the Rook to support a piece on e2. But by the time he'd done all that Black had a positional lockdown on most of the board.

But, eh, better luck? :)

<Seven hundred pages, eh? Don't they just fill up.>

No, it's his play. Which is a very high-powered version of the style that troubles me most, in other games. Simple stuff, superficially, but every move counts. Something like Fischer. With the difference that Fischer had trouble against the French, sometimes.

The meta-problem with the French is that part of its strength lies in getting a better endgame for Black. But if you reach an ending in a simul you're essentially playing blitz with a GM, and I couldn't play blitz with a cucumber.

There are optimal ways of playing in a simul, relying on the way your opponent's focus is smeared around the room. Steering for positions where seemingly simple moves have hidden complexities - though they'd need to be so deeply hidden I wouldn't see them either. But something like that worked against Miles, kinda.

Anyways, optimal schmoptimal. It's been so long that I forget the details. But I was quite impressed by the way Mr Kingscrusher said he almost enjoyed losing. I think I know what he means.

I'll play my stuff, my way. Who else could I try to impersonate at this stage? Even Kasparov didn't beat Nigel as comfortably as the match score suggests. I was there, and I think Nigel mainly beat himself, getting out-psyched and under-confident.

Avanti. The world is changing, again. The Arab Street is having its 1989 moment - I hope it's a 1989 moment rather than a 1789 or 1589 moment - and who knows what the morrow will bring?

Are you familiar, btw, with Nigel's old mantra, TDF ...? I think he's grown out of it now, but it was once his riposte to Nimzo's 'Restrain, Blockade, Destroy'. TDF - T for trap, D for dominate, F for, um, some firkin F-word.

I had actually forgotten about that! And only 2 months have passed.. Either time or my memory leaves quickly. Perhaps both :P

I think it was Krogius who adviced his talented students to go over a couple of games where their higher rated opponents lost.

It is anyway an old trick that has helped me along the way a couple of times....

So I wish you all the best in your encounter with Nigel.

[Event "MCA sim"]
[Site "Ajelat"]
[Date "2003.03.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Short, Nigel D"]
[Black "Abela, Daniel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C18"]
[WhiteElo "2690"]
[EventType "simul"]
[EventRounds "1"]
[EventCountry "LBY"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 O-O 8.Bd3 c4 9.Be2 Nbc6 10.h4 f6 11.f4 Qa5 12.Bd2 Nf5 13.h5 fxe5 14.fxe5 Ne3 0-1

<Dom> You're psyching yourself out too, dear. You could at least wait until you have a chess board in front of you with something actually worth worrying about on it, before you do that? ;s

Yeah, I knew about TDF. Heh! I do like Short's sense of humor - it's other aspects of his personality I don't much care for.

OK, hopefully he had grown out of it. Else, you may have to think about, um, turning a prophet. ;p