MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
CABINET OF CURIOSITIES (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 76, 77, 78 ... 176, 177, 178  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Have you ever considered that the Immortal Game is a forgery? We've all played it out, we've all wondered how such an extraordinary game could ever get played between two masters, even nineteenth century masters. We've all heard of Anderssen, none of us has heard of Kieseritzky and none of us has played out anything like it before or since. Not that a chess nut like you, Wiley, is the best person to ask. Still it served its purpose in spreading the fame of international competition chess. Come in, Paul Morphy.


Kieseritzky is known, his name is attached to a particularly tricky line of the Kings Gambit. It doesn't look like a composed game to me. A variant of your argument might be true, let us suppose they played a similar game but the finish was a bit more mundane. The beautiful win was spotted in post game analysis, then the spectacular was substituted for the purpose of publication. Alekhine certainly substituted more beautiful finishes. There are a number of fake games in the databases, eg those that feature Napoleon.

You are also right that I am using this line of thinking in the Boys Book of Imaginary Battles. The Battle of Thermopylae certainly never happened as it's a textbook example of force multiplication, ie. it is text book for boys, not a battle.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A variant of your argument might be true, let us suppose they played a similar game but the finish was a bit more mundane. The beautiful win was spotted in post game analysis, then the spectacular was substituted for the purpose of publication.

I knew it would be no use asking a chess freak. Since the opening was presumably stereotyped in the usual way, and the early middle game (judging from your ability to judge it as 'real') was undistinguished, we come to the spectacular sacrifices. Since none of these would have occurred unless mate was inevitable, they didn't occur. So what, precisely, is left of your precious Immortal Game?

Are you saying that Alekhine duped the chess public? I find this unlikely in the extreme in the days of Stalinist chess, though the editors of Soviet Chess Weekly might have done so. Napoleon we all know about and doesn't count. I should like to hear of any other of these 'number of fake games in the databases' but this time, Wiley, through proper AE non-starry eyes.

PS When are you going to thank me for drawing this to your attention, Wiley, and by what means are you going to alert your chess chums?

PPS Tomorrow I'll tell you about when we beat Huddersfield Town 7-6 after being down 5-1, five of our goals being scored by a bloke whose son I used to play football with. Down in the Valley, the valley so low, we call it the Immortal Game. And it actually happened!
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hmm.

Since none of these would have occurred unless mate was inevitable, they didn't occur.

There are two types of sacrifices "real" ie played intuitively, on the basis of positional compensation and "non real" ie sacrifices that are played because they can be calculated by the use of forcing moves, to an end position eg to checkmate or the win back of material. (sometimes called sham sacrifices)

When Andersson sacrificed a pawn on move 2, he knows that in some lines he cannot recover it by force. It is gamble (gambit) everything else being equal, he judges his positional compensation, ie better centre, faster development will compensate the loss of the pawn. The game features real sacrifices. Real sacrifices occur quite frequently in chess games, a particular master of these was Tal, but all strong players use them. So....The final Queen sacrifice at the end was not real in the sense by then Anderssen had seen mate.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley, I'm beginning to think you're some kind of chess academic, i.e. you can't help talking tripe because you have to defend the paradigm at all costs. Let me disabuse you of your notions even though I know from bitter experience it will do no good because you're the expert and I'm the duffer.

There are two types of sacrifices "real" ie played intuitively, on the basis of positional compensation

Leave it out, sunshine, with your 'played intuitively'. There are standard lines that involve giving up a pawn to control the centre. If you think human beings have developed a brain capable of intuitively understanding long term strategic possibilities at a level when playing a piece down, you should take up draughts. A rook for a bishop I would just about wear. Even a knight for a really strategically placed pawn. But, come on, Wiley, you can't play a piece down. Not just because it feels right.

and "non real" ie sacrifices that are played because they can be calculated by the use of forcing moves,

This is not a sacrifice, it is a win. And then only if you're playing a mug.

Real sacrifices occur quite frequently in chess games, a particular master of these was Tal, but all strong players use them.

Tal that to the marines. Nobody sacrifices a piece unless there is a forced win that is reasonably imminent. I accept that very strong players, when playing against weak players, and needing a point rather than half a point, might liven things up with a piece sacrifice. More likely the work of the editors of Soviet Chess Weekly though. Do you ever see it now?

When Andersson sacrificed a pawn on move 2, he knows that in some lines he cannot recover it by force.

Fairy stories. He is following an absolutely standard opening in which the sacrifice is offered or declined with in either case rough parity ensuing

The final Queen sacrifice at the end was not real in the sense by then Anderssen had seen mate.

Oh, right, he gave up both rooks and a bishop just on the offchance.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

Leave it out, sunshine, with your 'played intuitively'. There are standard lines that involve giving up a pawn to control the centre. If you think human beings have developed a brain capable of intuitively understanding long term strategic possibilities at a level when playing a piece down, you should take up draughts. A rook for a bishop I would just about wear. Even a knight for a really strategically place pawn. But, come on, Wiley, you can't play a piece down. Not just because it feels right.



You are right this is where I am going wrong. All I can say is that to my eyes is that if Kieseritzky had tried to play the whole game with just his queen and bishop ie 12 points and with his king in the centre, then I would have been pretty damn confident that I could whip his arse with my queen and three active pieces, ie 18 points. I simply swap off his last piece the bishop, that controls the 32 dark squares and have a ratio of 15 to 9 a safer king and all the dark sqs. The only problem is that the computer sees a defence. I should have done a Harper, and inched forward more slowly without the sacrifices, which is presumably what Anderssen would have done, if he had realised the actual risk but heyho Harper, you have to let romantics like Anderssen and Wiley play to the gallery, if only because you want the fun of it watching them blow themselves up.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Written by a true academic.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Who can forget the famous full rook sacrifice, without any clear follow up of David Bronstein? Bronstein-Ljubojevic Petropolis 1973, perhaps he was inspired by Andersson's example? It certainly has some similarities, with the central and dark square control. I might write a thesis on this.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Fuck! I'd forgotten that one. I've got to hand it to you this time, Wiley, and no mistake. You bwana, me pigmy. You top banana, me pigmeat. Now for the Evergreen Game.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The rest of you should note that Wiley has still not recognised that he learned something of immense significance. That the most famous game in world chess history was in fact a fake. He has already convinced himself that he always knew it. What is called 'old hat syndrome'. Of course he has a second line of defence already prepared: that it is of no significance anyway. In time he will employ the 'Ishmael Defence' (always countered with the 'Harper Defence') which is that it was his idea in the first place. What he doesn't know is that he is changed forever. That is why true academics always employ the 'careful ignoral' defence.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am happy for you to be the originator of this. What I needed for The Boys Book of Imaginary Battles was a textbook of made up chess games not a single game.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is an interesting idea. As I understand it, there are hordes of people devoted to solving made up but unrealistic chess puzzles; there are hordes of people playing out real but rather dull recent grandmaster games; there are hordes of people playing real but dull chess games against chess programs. So what is needed is a computer program that makes up exciting but realistic games played between imaginary grandmasters (or real ones that have lent their names and pretended to have vetted proceedings). Now here's the USP: when you turn on the computer, the game is already in progress and you have to take over one side or the other. You know fireworks are in the offing but you don't know whether you are supposed to be finding them or guarding against them.

And so on and so forth. I'll leave you to write the software and my cheque.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No, that is not it.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Folks have discovered that chess is racist as white moves first, or depending on your view that chess is not racist and the whole thing was blown up because of Black Lives Matter.


In actual fact there is a bit of a cover up going on (Fake news!) as the most famous chess game ever, the so called The Immortal Game played by Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky, was actually won by black. Anderssen gave up both rooks and a bishop, then his queen, checkmating his opponent with just his three remaining minor pieces.


The game was won by black (if actually played) as Andersson had the black pieces and he played first. There being no set rules, or convention at the time, which colour moves first. All the games, colours and notation have been standardised over the years, much in the same way history has a standardised common chronology.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

New from our wonderful NHS

So I’ve got water in my ears or something. I can hardly hear Special Branch. Is this even treatable during COVID? Dunno. Look at my GP’s website. Apparently it is but all initial consultations are by internet. Anyway I fill everything in and next day I get a nice doctor on the phone. Blah blah. Let’s get your ears syringed as a first step. Make an appointment with the nurse.

Now comes the hard part. Engaged, ring back, no ring back, engaged, engaged etc. After a few goes I get through to the 'Please hold while a member of staff etc' After half an hour of holding on I decide, “Hey, why don’t I make an appointment on the internet?” Because, you halfwit, the system requires you to have a username and password which you have to get from your GP’s surgery. I am still listening to "Please hold while..."... I ponder my options. I know! Use the consultation procedure to slip in a plea for an appointment.

But the weird thing is I can't see how I got as far as the form for the consultation now. Everything seems to have changed since yesterday and I need a username and a password. I'm going to ring George Sewell. (That's a Special Branch joke.) Two mentions of Special Branch, three now, that means I'm on their internet recognition software radar even if I'm not on my GP surgery's. You're not having my username, copper!

Late (much later) breaking news: I've got an appointment. "No, we don't have any nurses on next week. I can do you a three-thirty cancellation tomorrow." "Shouldn't I be putting drops in for a few days or something." "Yeah, ideally, but we'll give it a go."
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Blocked ears should be considered key symptom of coronavirus, say scientists

Using data from the Covid Symptom Study app from about 336,000 regular UK users, King's College London researchers found that 8.8% of people testing positive for the disease had experienced blocked ears as part of their symptoms. This was compared with 5.4% of people with a negative test result. "So if you notice a newly blocked ear, you should take it seriously by self-isolating and getting tested as soon as possible." said consultant audiologist Dr Pop Klik.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 76, 77, 78 ... 176, 177, 178  Next

Jump to:  
Page 77 of 178

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group