Re: Chess on tv


<jamesrynd@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1124467551.929926.153870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I don't know who 'you' are, but I do know for sure that people who can't
>>write their own names to their messages, while deriding those who can, are
>>not genreally happy souls. Maybe its different where you are?
>
> Thanks for the mostly courteous reply, and I will address one small
> point below that I think is interesting, but I must comment on this
> (again). There are various people who prefer anonynmity on the net, and
> this is allowed them.

Certainly - I do not dispute the need of it at all, except that it also
bears with it, like any expression, a certain responsibility.

> I think lumping them all into one category does
> many of them a disservice.

Sure.

> And to call what I post derision has the
> patina of truth - I do not suffer what I feel are foolish notions
> gladly, but you will find that my negative responses, if you survey the
> chess ngs, are confined to certain individuals.

Okay. So far we are in very broad agreement - I write with a spectrum of
writers, many of them grandmasters, and no less than a dozen of them per
week, and their response to public correspondance is much the same - severe
inhibition about writing under their own name in public.

> I really think if you gave up on this ontological assumption of
> anonymity as pathology (and to be honest, Phil, there is no doubt in my
> mind that you write at least some of the content of Alekhine's Parrot,

I write most of the chessic material - the commentary on which is
editorialised. Sometimes, though I usually do not do so sionce I welcome
another voice in these affairs, these are my own comments, but otherwise
they may be of our [Danish] editor or [American] publisher, or even another
voice. The function of editorial comment is to raise issues based on current
events, and while I may suggest issues, they are not always followed,
sometimes ignored, but usually <stress> written by another person.

> so it seems rather a double standard for you to criticize anonymity -
> BTW, is he a Norwegian Blue?), you would engender more positive
> responses to your posts from folks like me. But again, your opinion is
> your own, and you are allowed to freely express it.

Good! The response to 1.e4 is not to resign, no? The response is often
1...c5 and I suggest that this 'critique' of white's first move is a
parallel to discussion of chess issues. An idea is met by a contrary and
equal idea. How else should real chess players behave towards one another?

What is not okay is to rubbish 1. e4 without making an /adequate/ reply. As
we know this is an epistemic issue - it relates to our experience of life,
and to chess players writing in newsgroups any challenge has to be adequate,
rather than theoretical, or without 'experience'.

>>In order to answer them it would be necessary to write full
>>sentences, for example: "...had little to offer", to whom? And I think you
>>might answer on your own behalf by saying your skill level and also if
>>perhaps you were a parent with chess-age kids, or even ran a chess club.
>
> Well, I have given you my skill level before and received a most
> uncourteous response, indicating that I was in no way at that level,

I simply had not understood who any "I" might be that would hide themselves.
There is a gawd-awful amount of people here who would pretend to some level
of chess understanding, or any other form of understanding - and I would
agree with you that it's necessary to sometimes ask what is actual about any
poster.

> but I will try again. I am a USCF NM, 35 years in chess, my son never
> had any interest in chess

nor mine! my son doesn't really play, and daughter is indignant when I say
she doesn't, and in truth she does not actually play, but I still introduce
her to some people who do, even at top levels, even world champion
candidates, and especially when they both seem to engage on the subjects of
dynamic issues, often literature, but more often, self-generated originality
and creativity, their own writing genius... do I digress? ]lol]

> and I consider it a mistake to force kids
> into activities they don't like.

agree mcuho! I always hated 'chess int he schools' not that it wouldn't
benefit kids, but because it makes chess as interesting as any compulsory
subject, a fast food fed to our kids generation [gawd! what were we fed?]

> I ran a chess club for 3 years and
> directed about 100 USCF rated tournaments, most of them club level,
> small tournaments.I did run one scholastic club for a failed semester;
> I don't have the patience to deal with kids.

lol! I used to have 2 as a psychological single parent, now I have 5 of them
having marries a woman who raised 3 boys on her own

> I have published
> scientific papers on the value of chess in brain health of the elderly,

yes - good stuff! I have read some material on these things - really
important from age 50+ to try to challenge and stimulate yourself, no?

> and the long-term educational value of chess to adults, and actively
> publish in mostly foreign chess magazines (problems) and state-level
> publications, though I have had a few articles appear in CL. I had the
> pleasure of seeing one of my games annotated in the BCM, and another in
> CL this year.

I have never achieved either!

> But, I still think the program held little appeal for chessplayers
> *and* I don't see how the program would work well as a recruiting tool
> for chess.

Think on it though. Please be specific, what did work and what did not as a
recruitment tool for non or hemi-semi chess players, and what worked for
existing ones? I already wrote on who was interested in the Gulko games -
neither resolution is at all simple - though according to Khalifman there
are 2 wins here for team USA - one, extraordinarily complicated! And the
thing of it is, he saw this while playing - and he played on another board!
Anyway, let us discard him, and I will attend your further comments...

> Could this be a blind spot? Of course. Who is right? Well,
> only time will tell. However, my wife, who is a non-chessplayer, also
> saw portions of the broadcast, and she will disagree with me readily if
> she feels differently -

My wife is also a non-player, and scarecely attended the broadcast.

> but she also saw little value in what she saw
> (of course, she is one of those folks who enjoy watching 400 lb
> linebackers, but that should place her more squarely in the group you
> were trying to attract than anything...)

Point noted! In fact, if you would care to pass your keyboard to your wife I
should be glad to understand more than the little I currently do about the
female mind :))

> Were the Gulko games OK? Yes, for 20 minute games, certainly. Were they
> annotable? Well, certainly, if a puny player like me can get a game
> annotated, yes. And I made the remark about future programs featuring 9
> year old prodigies playing 1 minute games to make a point. I either did
> that poorly or you didn't understand. My point is: if we have to reduce
> chess to a lowest common denominator to get it on TV, forget TV.

And you make a fair point. When looking forward to what will fit a 'tv-hour'
which is 44 minutes broadcast to a general audience, the sense of your
comment is the major one. Who are we addressing? The active chess player,
the sort-of chess player who understand the moves, or the non-chess player -
like with professional football presentations!

One solution is to appreciate what any mass audience might 'get' via tv, but
what any more 'dedicated' chess audience might appreciate via linked
web-site.

Think about this again - if USCF membership is currently 80k, what
proportion of them would even be capable of watching a chess program? And if
100% of USCF membership of active rated players were all there was to view
the program [55% of them below 1000 rated], no possible program could be
broadcast to such a minute audience, whereas with a market size of
500,000,000 or half a billion persons, one would need to maintain a certain
level of generity, no?

> And I think these 20 minute games are feeding into that. Many have made
> the comment that FIDE's changing time controls, making them faster to,
> again, "make chess popular" is a mistake.

I agree with you that conditions at the top are generally atrocious. We
might as well ask the best musicians of our age to play sophisticated
disonant music in a pub!

> I see the program as similar.


Ay - while 'in' the program one was aware of an extraordinary level of
demand on it. An impossible level in fact.

> I want to see real GM games at classic time controls; after all, I can
> personally play them on ICC in quick games, so watching their quick
> games holds little value to me. It is much more fun for me to know I
> once beat Dlugy in a 5 minute game on ICC (an anomaly, of course; he
> would most likely beat me soundly in the next 99 games we play, every
> game, and in most of them I would look like the 900 player hanging
> pieces).

I played a stronger GM in Nahville -inhis own published system - as is
honorable to such a person, and held out for 35 moves, when the damned bloke
did not succumb to any of my tricks whatever, no mater that I had cleverly
sacrificed the exchange for the two bishops which raked the board! [in
vain] :(

> I also made a comparison in my mind between the program and my visit to
> the Biel Interzonal some (many) years back. Before you dismiss this,
> this analogy has relevance to "distance chess."
>
> I was able to watch Tal roll up Portisch nicely in a variation of the
> Ruy I have often played. I also spent time playing a Yugoslav 2400
> speed chess for money, and played Forintos in a simul.

I also spent some time in Europe in the 70's and clashed with some 'names'
but alas... phil is now over the hill :((

> How this is the same? Well, on ICC I can do the same thing. I can watch
> GM games commented on by GMs, many of whom write the same books I buy.
> When the game reaches a lull, I can go into the 5 minute pool, play one
> or two decent games and then get smashed by a GM. Simuls?

Our postal delivery guy is stronger than me and plays serial matches on ICC
against IMs and GMs, staying up half the night, and mostly smashed - both he
and they...

> They often
> occur at the same time, and again, they are against players that I
> would be proud to get a scalp from, even if it is a simul game.
>
> I may not be expressing this how it was originally expressed, but
> someone commented on the excitement value of watching the looks on the
> GM's faces, etc. I don't see any value in this,

Ah. Interesting! But let this pass a moment...

> and when I went to
> Biel, I cannot remember much about how the players looked, but I can
> see the game that transfixed me on the demo board to this day...

Okay - you really are a master player.

> "Found something for everyone"? This again strikes me as media
> hyperbole, and simply not true.

I am a Celt Sir, and would as much agree or disagree with you as take your
throat - the difference being that I am completely indifferent to your
agreement with me as a need for approval. If in doubt, chuck a brick through
your tv - you could hardly go wrong by doing so.

>You mentioned Lyman and the Fischer
> programs. Weren't those an anomaly of the times; again, "The American
> versus the Rooskies"? And it was billed as such - one lone heroic
> American against the entire Soviet Union. Now, *that's* entertainment.

It was - and not just for Americans - these American blokes kept it going
for a few other programs and nothing much since for 30 years.

> Enough on this for me.... I'm getting a bit bored with the topic, but I
> imagine we will *** heads on another.... I actually hope sometimes I
> am wrong about this, as of course we would like to promote our game....

I hope we shall continue to but heads, in the spirit of 1.e4 and 1... c5!
and in no other spirit at all.

I like you Mr. "Rynd" and dislike your ideas.

Cordially, Phil Innes


.