Rick really has a way with words, doesn't he.
This made me chuckle
Sort:
haha
Yes yes, merely consulting a thesaurus, what about triumph, vanquish, conquer, supremicate?
Aug 28, 2010
0
#5
Estragon wrote:
He raises a quite valid point. At some moment in the past, probably around 40 years ago, some chess publisher noticed that books by little-known authors didn't sell very well, but if they included "Win with" or "Beat the" in the title, sales went up xx%.
From that day forward, this old marketing wisdom has ruled chess publishing, and not without reason. Chess players want to get better, but they don't want to get better by doing the hard stuff - playing strong players, playing over master games, learning to play endings. Most people want short cuts in the openings that will befuddle their opponents long enough to grab a quick win.
Of course there is no magic opening out there. It's rare enough when a game at high levels is won by opening preparation, and then it is nearly always the result of the player's own analysis, not something published for the broad market. At amateur levels, almost the only games won in the opening are through traps. Opening preparation means nearly nothing, yet players at these levels continue to buy openings books that promise "Win" and not endgame books that might actually help.
You're so right. There's an IM who gives discussions at my club and when we met up the other day to discuss what we like & dislike about them about 90% of the people there just wanted him to show us loads of opening traps. *sigh*.
ivandh wrote:
Yes yes, merely consulting a thesaurus, what about triumph, vanquish, conquer, supremicate?
If 'supremicate' is a word it shouldn't be. ;)
It isn't a word. this thread is the only thing that shows up in google if you search for it. 
also, that also made me chuckle.
I'm almost finished writing "Losing with the Dutch" ... am I in the correct thread?
benws wrote:
It isn't a word. this thread is the only thing that shows up in google if you search for it.
also, that also made me chuckle.
It made me chuckle that you googled it.
Actually it does appear in a book titled "Philosophia Peripatetica: Antiquorum Principiis et Recentorium" by Antonius Mayr. I think he made it up though.
WhiteKnight56 wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Yes yes, merely consulting a thesaurus, what about triumph, vanquish, conquer, supremicate?
If 'supremicate' is a word it shouldn't be. ;)
I heard it can make you go blind.
No, that's my uncle's home-made hooch. And only if you drink more than one glass.
I'm going to go read Robert Anton Wilson's blog now. He makes up words too.
Niven42 wrote:
I'm going to go read Robert Anton Wilson's blog now. He makes up words too.
I just Googled him. Some of his writing is amazing - but sadly he has recently passed on. See http://www.rawilson.com/home.html .
Estragon wrote:
At amateur levels, almost the only games won in the opening are through traps. Opening preparation means nearly nothing....
Not meaning to advocate excessive study by amateurs, but a lot of games won in the opening by players at this level are the result of errors by the less well prepared player. (Of course the booked-up amateur isn't immune to blundering an opening if the opponent takes him out of his book.)
Along those lines, my occasional meagre study was often frustrated in books, when I would see a position which seemed to scream for, for example, "cxd4." The text on this variation would then almost invariably end with, "Of course, not cxd4." WHY THE ____ NOT!!!! Usually, I never found the reason. It often looked like the bust to the whole variation, and would probably squash my sorry behind in a real game. I think I ended up deciding it was all an inside joke among Masters.
Bur_Oak wrote:
Estragon wrote:
At amateur levels, almost the only games won in the opening are through traps. Opening preparation means nearly nothing....
Not meaning to advocate excessive study by amateurs, but a lot of games won in the opening by players at this level are the result of errors by the less well prepared player. (Of course the booked-up amateur isn't immune to blundering an opening if the opponent takes him out of his book.)
Along those lines, my occasional meagre study was often frustrated in books, when I would see a position which seemed to scream for, for example, "cxd4." The text on this variation would then almost invariably end with, "Of course, not cxd4." WHY THE ____ NOT!!!! Usually, I never found the reason. It often looked like the bust to the whole variation, and would probably squash my sorry behind in a real game. I think I ended up deciding it was all an inside joke among Masters.
Lol! That's a feeling I have often had, nicely put! :)
"I have always been intrigued by chess opening books with the words “win” or “winning” in their titles. I can imagine myself sitting down to a game with a buddy, confident with 1.e4 because I’ve ingested Winning with the Ruy Lopez. Quick as a shot, though, in this reverie, he replies 1…c5, and I realize that he’s been visiting Winning with the Sicilian Dragon. No problem. My latest study was Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit, so I whip out 2.d4, and after 2…cd, I proceed with 3.c3. My opponent smiles as he takes the pawn, 3…dxc, and I suddenly realize with a bit of chagrin that he’s been reading Beating the Anti-Sicilians…"
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/WinWithLondonSystem.htm