Now excuse me for a bit, I have to go outside and feed a dozen or so alley cats.

Now, I am not at all able to play blindfold, unless i have the time to "check" for the correct position purely by visualization. I read you mentioned somewhere you thought the elite players have the capability to combine the raw score with the visualization.

You on the other hand rely on memorization of moves, coordinates.

Those are visualized as well, I imagine.

But then how do you explain Carlsen winning a blindfold vs 10 advanced players when he was about 15 - 16, and during this Amber players losing position repeatedly with a relative large amount of time available?

It's just one of those areas in Chess where I am not knowledgeable and experienced.

I'm reminded of the incredible simul blind records achieved by both Chess and Checkers players, Ton Sijbrands, who played 20+ opponents blindfold, and hardly if ever lost track of any position.

Remembering the game score is fine for the first 20 or 25 moves, but subject to the law of diminishing returns thereafter. And totally worthless in endings. So, ergo, there must also be a visualization method, which perhaps players rely on to varying degrees.

I think I said before that I've been short-sighted (as in myopic) most of my life, and quite early on developed memory and auditory schemes to compensate for things I couldn't see properly. That could be a factor.

I suspect it's also crucial to have an algebraic notation system embedded in your memory -- to know instantly what colour square c5 or g3 is, what squares a Knight or Queen will attack from there, and so on.

I try to practice this in real games by thinking "Nf6, then gxf6, then Qxf6" rather than "I go there, he goes there".

He also explained how one develops a perfect "feel" for the dark or light color of the squares, related, and of diagonals, knight moves, usw. ...

I can't imagine thinking music: I find it hard enough to identify a piece I've heard before. But I imagine you're familiar with the process.

Then I found myself visualizing a cube, counting its vertices, rotating it, etc. Much easier. I found I could even, kinda, visualize a 4-dimensional hypercube, or the shadow of one in three dimensions.

The picture of Rameau is on the cover of an English Penguin paperback, Rameau's Nephew / D'Alembert's Dream, by Denis Diderot.

Diderot wrote these 'fictions' using 'real' persons, including the composer Rameau and the mathematician (and fellow encyclopediast) D'Alembert.

And he discusses, inter alia, the way we construct memories, build a world, visualize abstract entities, usw.

"We're all cavemen in one sense or another. We can't imagine anything scarier than a ghost. But the violation of the law of causality is much more terrifying than a stampede of ghosts. And all the monsters of Rubenstein ..."

"Frankenstein."
"Of course, Frankenstein."

20th Amber Tournament (Blindfold) (2011)

LOL!!

I'd pay a lot of money to see that film on the big screen, no joke.

Speaking of films, I may already have mentioned this but I'm far too lazy to backtrack and check.

Based largely on your faith in <Werner>, I decided to watch virtually all of his films since <Fitzcarraldo> and I even forced myself to "forgive" the execrable <Brad Dourif> doing his level best to destroy <The Wild Blue Yonder>, and I have to agree.

<Herzog> is far too interesting, takes so many chances, so honest, so attuned to the deepest emotional resonances of every topic, to say that he has "lost it" or is filming a series of "duds."

He isn't, as you said.

I particularly love his documentaries about Antarctica and the Crazy Balloon Man, which I hadn't seen.

So I treated myself to <Heart of Glass> as well, and who could resist a Caspar David Freidrich painting come to life, with a stunning soundtrack.

<Werner> has a knack for collaborating with the most soulful musicians- and not just <Popol Vuh>, possibly the most underrated band in European history.

<Werner's> collaboration with controversial cellist <Ernst Reijseger>, <Voces Siciliano>, and the great Senegalese singer <Moses Sylla> is spectacular.

<Reijseger> reports that he asked <Werner> "so what exactly do you want in this composition"?

And <Werner> simply said "Space."

The result was, arguably, <Reijseger's> masterpiece- "Requiem for a Dying Planet."

<I'd pay a lot of money to see that film on the big screen, no joke.>

Then I suppose I should make it, or persuade Werner to have a shot.

Prof Dawkins wouldn't approve, of course. There are mad scientists and there are *mad* scientists, and church building is out there.

Maybe it could be updated with Angelchips -- tiny quantum computing devices made of chained angels, reputed to be very small and quite intelligent.

Yours faithfully,

Innaresting ideas on disinformation strategies, the use of technological edges ("analysis infrastructure and protocols") in order to win. Fascinating. NFL allows strategic audio broadcasts to players via headsets ... but not the kind of iPod usage now common in international soccer, ie when sending on subs.

The spooks believe in two things: data, and winning.

Elsewhere, I see ancient debates about 'cheating' still being rehearsed in le monde d'echecs. Isn't it time we got le singe off our back?

Then again, there's 'cheating' and there's stupidity. I don't play chess online so I have no personal experience of the techniques currently in use -- it's one reason I prefer old-style mano-a-mano OTB chess (ideally with opponents who don't have hearing aids and sightlines to tall buildings).

But Nigel Short told me that in one recent simultaneous exhibition he caught one of his opponents with a chess engine on his lap.

Where would we be without stupidity?

The daily 'puzzle' (technically just a game position, but people insist on treating it as a puzzle, with concomitant aesthetic and technical expectations) here on CG is a case in point. It demonstrates how far people can go with a hint, however indirect ("it's Monday, so I should look for a big sacrifice and quick win").

It should be possible to work out a sort of grading handicap -- just how many Fritz/Rybka 'hints' per game will enable a 2000-rated player to beat a GM. Three or four should do it, in typical games.

My fave auto-quote, vaguely alluding to Flann O'Brien (as Jessica knoweth) is "Combinations and chemistry are your only men".

The beauty lies in the ambiguity of the terms. Combinations, chemistry, and men can all mean various things.

However, I have discovered that in Books of India - notably the Kama Sutra - 'combinations' refer to certain sexual activities requiring the participation of more than one person. More than two, even.