ChessPub Forum - The Art of Flogging a Dead Horse (formerly C in C)

(UTC)

Latest Updates:

King Pawn - 16 Apr Open Sicilians - 16 Apr Queen's Gambit, Slav - 15 Apr

ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › The Art of Flogging a Dead Horse (formerly C in C)

(Moderators: RoleyPoley, trw, proustiskeen)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Poll

Question: Should this Thread's name be changed?


* This poll has now closed *
No 2 (10.5%) Yes: 2 (10.5%) Romanticism and Chess 0 (0.0%) Gambit on Chess 3 (15.8%) Vertically Isolated Dispersions 2 (10.5%) Great Train Wrecks 2 (10.5%) Others: (50 characters or less) 3 (15.8%) The Art of Flogging a Dead Horse 5 (26.3%) Total votes: 19 « Last Modified by: Smyslov_Fan on: 07/17/09 at 23:52:47 »

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9

Topic Tools

The Art of Flogging a Dead Horse (formerly C in C) (Read 40663 times)

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #17 - 07/14/09 at 15:00:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	TonyRo wrote on 07/14/09 at 13:07:32: Don't you get discouraged that all of your "chess creations" are crappy gambits that are refutable by an expert and a computer? Don't you get sick of knowing deep down your're stunting your chess by refusing to acknowledge that attacking is not the only way to play? Don't you get sad that you could have made it higher than Expert if you'd bother to learn something about the game instead of trying to distill it into some sacrifice competition? That's why he loves blitz so much. Then his chess creations do work. Now I must say that trying to make such creations work is an excellent reason to play chess. It's the dogmatic way he declares these openings morally superior plus what he calls the Romantic style (neither Morphy nor Anderssen would ever have played any Zilbermintz Gambit) plus his !@#$%^&*() idea of chivalry regarding avoiding/declining gambits that I object. In other words, I grant him his fun and the way he derives it from his games. Alas he does not the same in reverse. In the end he is more judgmental than the most extreme TV-preacher. Gambit wrote on 07/14/09 at 11:08:56: I think FIDE did Fischer wrong by not accepting all his conditions back in 1975. If Fischer's conditions were all accepted, the match would have taken place. I think Fischer did Karpov wrong by not accepting the very normal conditions FIDE offered. If Fischer had accepted these, even in 1977, the match would have taken place. If there is one thing Karpov regretted in his career it is not having played Fischer.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

TonyRo God Member Offline I'm gonna crack your skull! Posts: 1846 Location: Cleveland, OH Joined: 11/26/07 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #16 - 07/14/09 at 14:33:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 07/14/09 at 13:21:19: That's so true. Lev obviously has both imagination and talent, and if only he would stop banging his head against this wall and start studying chess seriously, I'll be he would make master. Yes! I mean to be honest, I find him extremely aggravating and annoying (I'm sure he thinks the same of me no doubt), but mostly I just feel bad for him. I think we all know that he knows the Zilbermints Gambit is terrible. There's no way he actually believes half the crap he posts about it. You know when he posts games that he's dodging questions, and you know when he says, "Let me consult my archives..." that he's never going to post back. He's clinging on to these "creations" of his for some reason, even though deep down he knows they're not good. I feel bad. If he'd bother to learn something about the other 95% of chess, I'm sure he'd be quite strong. @Schaakhamster Yes - everyone does play chess for different reasons. The difference is is that no one else in this forum takes such a lopsided view of the game and purports it to be the end all be all.


	IP Logged

Schaakhamster God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 650 Joined: 05/13/08	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #15 - 07/14/09 at 13:41:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	People play chess for numerous reasons. Who's to say that Gambit's reasons are beter or worse that other reasons? That being said: I don't really believe that what he describes is cowardice. When refusing a sacrife is a good move why should it be cowardice?


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #14 - 07/14/09 at 13:21:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	That's so true. Lev obviously has both imagination and talent, and if only he would stop banging his head against this wall and start studying chess seriously, I'll bet he would make master.
	« Last Edit: 07/14/09 at 15:39:52 by Markovich »
	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

TonyRo God Member Offline I'm gonna crack your skull! Posts: 1846 Location: Cleveland, OH Joined: 11/26/07 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #13 - 07/14/09 at 13:07:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	Don't you get discouraged that all of your "chess creations" are crappy gambits that are refutable by an expert and a computer? Don't you get sick of knowing deep down your're stunting your chess by refusing to acknowledge that attacking is not the only way to play? Don't you get sad that you could have made it higher than Expert if you'd bother to learn something about the game instead of trying to distill it into some sacrifice competition?


	IP Logged

Gambit God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 1397 Location: Newark Joined: 07/26/05 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #12 - 07/14/09 at 11:08:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	Schaakhamster wrote on 07/14/09 at 08:31:19: beating dead horse boring! edit: can't resist: Gambit what do you think of 1. d4 e5 2. e4 . White refuses the gambit by offering one. Is it cowardice or not? No, it is not. Offering a counter-gambit, which is still a gambit, is not cowardice. That is first. Second, I know who Karpov is, okay? I think FIDE did Fischer wrong by not accepting all his conditions back in 1975. If Fischer's conditions were all accepted, the match would have taken place. I am not a correspondence player, but an over-the-board player. Honestly, I distrust correspondence play because there is no guarantee your opponent is not using a computer to help. I prefer OTB tournaments, where you cannot use computer assistance.


	YIM IP Logged

Schaakhamster God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 650 Joined: 05/13/08	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #11 - 07/14/09 at 08:31:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	beating dead horse boring! edit: can't resist: Gambit what do you think of 1. d4 e5 2. e4 . White refuses the gambit by offering one. Is it cowardice or not?


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #10 - 07/14/09 at 07:26:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	Is it more cowardly to fianchetto your bishops or fianchetto your knights? Additionally, I have another question on this subject. Who played more cowardly (or bravely) in the following game? Notation: !! = Very Brave ! = Brave ? = Cowardly ?? = Very Cowardly !? = Brave Cowardice ?! = Coward Bravery 1. d4? e5! 2. Kd2! Qh4?! 3. g4!! Bb4+!? 4. c3! Ke7?? 5. Qb3! Qg3!! 6. Qe6+!? Kf8? 7. Kc2!! Nc6! 8.Bg5? Qd3+!! 9. Kc1! Qe3+?! 10. Kc2!? Qd3+? 11. Kc1? Qe3+!! 12. Kc2?? Qd3+??, draw agreed. Answer: White played more bravely. Black's 4...Ke7, refusing to accept any of White's sacrifice, was...unbrave. Unfortunately, the draw by repetition spoiled what was otherwise an interesting game.
	« Last Edit: 07/14/09 at 11:32:30 by TN »
	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Smyslov_Fan God Member Correspondence fan Offline Progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~GBS Posts: 6902 Joined: 06/15/05	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #9 - 07/14/09 at 04:35:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	I really thought the c-word had vanished from Gambit's vocabulary. I am sorry to see that I am wrong. My thesis advisor told that while he was studying in Germany, he played chess in one of the public squares. He made a move, and his opponent called him a coward. He decided he didn't need the abuse and didn't play in that square again. The few times I have been called a coward have been online. The people calling me a coward were trying to goad me into playing another game with them after I had just trounced them. In my experience, calling someone a coward has no positive effects, and only illuminates the type of person who makes the claim. If my opponent calls me a coward, it is because I have played something that he (and it has always been male) does not like. So I welcome the claims of cowardice. It means I have gotten under someone else's skin by playing good moves!


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #8 - 07/14/09 at 03:46:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Gambit wrote on 07/13/09 at 20:24:01: Karpov never played Fischer. Because Fischer was the coward and refused to play. Just compare how many games Fischer played between 1957 and 1972 and Karpov between 1975 and 1990. The difference is remarkable. I assume you are not aware that Karpov was one of the greatest attacking players of all time. For his treatment of the Keres-Attack is a feast for the chess eye. Give me one Karpov attacking game for a hundred games of Diemer. But it looks like you are not aware that attacking play has been modernized - and become much richer - since the days of Morphy. Another form of chess-cowardice is refusing to subject your opening ideas to one of the most gruelling chess grounds around: corr. play. (Now we will get LDZ's usual nonsense about me being a brain-dead yellow chicken who only relies on silicon power. That has brought me to the assumption that playing the BDG too much robs one of the ability of original and independent thinking. LDZ is an example of this assumption; he must have repeated his biases for a zillion times now on this forum without adding anything original)

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #7 - 07/14/09 at 02:06:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	Gambit wrote on 07/14/09 at 00:14:45: The object for me is to show that Romantic chess, the school of gambits and attacks, will triumph over such cowardly moves as 1...b6, 1...g6, which avoid gambits. This issue was resolved by approximately 1890. Chess is full of dynamism, and there are many brilliant, surprising moves. There are many fascinating lines where activity is traded for material, or for space. Just not on move one. You can play brilliant games, but you can't force gambit-style play from the first position, not with any degree of success against good players, anyway. We have been over this before, and you have never responded to this point. People avoid gambits only in the imagination of Lev Zilbermints. People trade activity for material all the time, just not with silly moves like 1.d4 e5? Just look at the Anti-Moscow Gambit, the Botvinnik Variation and the Latvian Bayonet, to mention a few modern examples. Look at the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish. Look at the Archangel. Look at the Winawer. Look at the Najdorf 6.Bg5. This is not play in the Romantic style; it's play in the modern style. What, Lev Zilbermints knows the nature of chess more deeply than essentially every titled player of this planet, or Lev Zilbermints wants chess to be something different, and much simpler, than it actually is? And Lev backs up his claims not with analysis, but with accusations of cowardice? It's ridiculous and frankly, it's contemptible.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Göran Senior Member Offline ChessPublishing is great! Posts: 454 Location: Sweden Joined: 02/13/08 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #6 - 07/14/09 at 00:32:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	I appreciate your persistency to prove something and I am sure that a lot of new good things will come out of that eventually and as you point out already has. What I am ridiculing is that there is only one way, your way. I don't mind if you will be able to prove that the romantic school is the best in a certain way. On the contrary. However I will be as persistent in claiming my right in playing the way that I think is the best way for me to play and I really think that not allowing me to do that but force me into something that I don't really like and never will be able to fully comprehend, that is cowardice and that is bulling.

	What kind of proof is that?
	IP Logged

Gambit God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 1397 Location: Newark Joined: 07/26/05 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #5 - 07/14/09 at 00:14:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bull, Hacker. The object for me is to show that Romantic chess, the school of gambits and attacks, will triumph over such cowardly moves as 1...b6, 1...g6, which avoid gambits. Now as far as that Hippopotamus challenge is concerned, the answer is: It is cowardice to decline the challenge, and bravery to accept. Here a challenge has been issued. In accordance with chivalric tradition, the challenge must be accepted! I don't care if my opponent knows or does not know the opening. Regardless, I will offer a gambit and he or she will have to accept it! Do you know how I came to independently invent the 3...Nge7 variation in the Englund Gambit complex? The year was 1993. I was tired of people playing 1 d4 against me and getting out of gambits. At that time, both the Englund, 3...Qe7 and the Budapest Gambits were either too well-known or considered not advantageous for Black. I needed something to take my opponents out of the book. So was born the Zilbermints Gambit, in March 1993! For every positional garbage, a gambit exists to refute it! Gambits are the heart and soul of chess. The gods made the open game before the closed game. First came Morphy, and only afterwards, Steinitz! Keep that in mind.


	YIM IP Logged

Göran Senior Member Offline ChessPublishing is great! Posts: 454 Location: Sweden Joined: 02/13/08 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #4 - 07/13/09 at 23:10:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	I might add to Gambit's interpretation that it is really to demonstrate cowardice to play an opening that you know very well or you know much better than your opponent. Also if you know your opponent not liking gambits then it is real cowardice to offer a pawn.

	What kind of proof is that?
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: Cowardice in Chess Reply #3 - 07/13/09 at 23:07:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	Gambit wrote on 07/13/09 at 20:24:01: Hello all, Thank you Markovich, for your kind invitation to start a thread here. I accept your invitation most gratefully! That said, what is cowardice in chess? It can be said that if after 1 e4 g6 is played, that can constitute cowardice according to the Italian school of chess. For a true swashbuckler will answer 1 e4 e5 and now on 2 Nf3 f5! the Greco (or Latvian) Counter-Gambit. No hiding, just coming and hitting with an all-out attack! Cowardice can also mean avoiding a certain opponent for fear of losing. The best examples are Morphy-Staunton, Alekhine-Capablanca and Fischer-Karpov. By way of explanation, it should be noted that Staunton never gave a match to Morphy; Alekhine avoided giving a rematch to Capablanca; and Karpov never played Fischer. I have had some people avoid playing me for a variety of silly excuses. These ranged from the idiotic "I play better than you" to downright withdrawing from the tournament where I played. Now, if these people wanted to show they are better, why not play the tournament game? Or is it just their balloon-sized ego? Cowardice means avoiding accepting gambits, preferring, dry, uninteresting positional garbage. Bravery means means accepting a gambit, not shying away from a challenge. Courage is the difference between a brave man and a lily-colored, yellow, yellow, yellow coward! If one player challenges another in a rapid chess game, on the condition that the challenger has to play the Hippopotamus, does that constitute cowardice or bravery?

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

« Board Index ‹ Board Top