Btw, Beethoven had been fully deaf for years before he ever thought about composing the 9th symphony. Just saying...
Arguably the best music ever composed in this history of mankind was mainly composed AFTER Beethoven was completely deaf. That's like the greatest games of chess EVER played being played blindfolded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenstadt_Testament
The analogy of Beethoven's deafness to blindfold chess may be inaccurate. First, if Ludwig's greatest achievements came after he lost his hearing, perhaps it was an advantage: blocking out other sounds, noise etc. The "deaf-culture" people (anti-cochlea-implant) would probably like to weigh in on this point......Also, again, chess performance can be quantified, judged objectively. Some players win many games blindfolded. The operative word is "win". Some people may like Beethoven's earlier work more than the later, and who can prove they're wrong? But a win in chess is a win. My point is this: Maybe the greatest games of chess EVER were games won by blindfold players!
Whats this fascination with Chuck Norris ?! I wonder do martial arts threads throw in Fischer when discussing martial arts ? Weird indeed ! Besides, everyone knows Bruce Lee was better, didnt you see their famous fight in the Roman Colisieum ?!
They do:
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87848&page=2
#20
I would say Fischer was the verry best, he was one of the smartest person ever. He was probably the smartest nonbillionaire, nondrug dealer, nondictator and non businessman who i ever heard of. He was brilliant in so many ways, but people make better sales when they put him down. Botvinnik i consider smarter than kasparov, i dont know enough about mozart and beethoven.Kasparov must be verry smart, because of his chess skills, but he made verry weird judgements and i think overall botvinnik outsmartet him.
The analogy of Beethoven's deafness to blindfold chess may be inaccurate. First, if Ludwig's greatest achievements came after he lost his hearing, perhaps it was an advantage: blocking out other sounds, noise etc. The "deaf-culture" people (anti-cochlea-implant) would probably like to weigh in on this point......Also, again, chess performance can be quantified, judged objectively. Some players win many games blindfolded. The operative word is "win". Some people may like Beethoven's earlier work more than the later, and who can prove they're wrong? But a win in chess is a win. My point is this: Maybe the greatest games of chess EVER were games won by blindfold players!
Wow, there are so many things that are strange about this post I don't really know where to start. So I'll just try to take things in order.
First, Beethoven was able to compose after his deafness because abilty to hear is compositions as he worked remained. Any thoroughly trained musician has this ability, speaking as one of those, to do this to some degree or another. Beethoven's ability to do this was INCREDIBLE. This is particulaly evident as his mature works headed off into sonic territory never explored before in the history of western music. Your argument about some people "liking" early Beethoven more than later "mature" Beethoven is off the mark. At issue is not musical taste. We are all free to prefer what we prefer. However what is not in dispute, at least amongst people who are serious students and/or practitioners of 18th and 19th century classical music is that Beethovens later music was more MATURE it was more developed. It was more complex. It drew more deeply on the imagination and daring of the composer. It was, in short, more challenging both for the composer and the audience. Your notion that perhaps the "greatest" games of chess ever played may have been blindfolded shows that many wonderful blindfold games are out there you don't really appreciate the depth of the true chess masterpieces by our greatest players. The quality of games is universally on a different level.
By the way I do like your Tal/coltrane comparison. FYI, my two favorite composers: John Coltrane and L.v.Beethoven. :)
Referring to polydiatonic's post #27: Thanks for the rather neutral adjective "strange" to describe my comment. They've been called worse, and probably deservedly so. But as to your argument on the superiority of Beethoven's later work over his earlier, it was very interesting, informative and "pretty". I have no doubt most serious students of his work would agree. But can you prove it objectively? Sure, you can prove one composition is longer than another, or has more notes, but you can't prove one work is "better" than another. It's a subjective assessment. Not so in chess. A game won by a guy playing blindfold is "better" than one he loses when he plays without the blindfold. The proof is in the result. My point is comparing chess and music is kind of an apples and oranges thing. And if you're not willing to concede that, then maybe apples and pears. Now, I'm not saying aesthetics is out of place in chess. Like a lot of players, I'm a fan of Fischer's (when he actually was a player). I would argue there's more beauty in, say for example, Bobby's loss to Tal at the Candidates Tournament in '59 (their 4th game) than in a lot of Petrosian's wins that go on for a million moves till his opponent resigns out of boredom. But the Fischer loss didn't advance his standing, and it is an objectively inferior game than a win....... Well, if you'll excuse me, I gotta' go split some more hairs.....
Referring to polydiatonic's post #27: Thanks for the rather neutral adjective "strange" to describe my comment. They've been called worse, and probably deservedly so. But as to your argument on the superiority of Beethoven's later work over his earlier, it was very interesting, informative and "pretty". I have no doubt most serious students of his work would agree. But can you prove it objectively? Sure, you can prove one composition is longer than another, or has more notes, but you can't prove one work is "better" than another. It's a subjective assessment. Not so in chess. A game won by a guy playing blindfold is "better" than one he loses when he plays without the blindfold. The proof is in the result. My point is comparing chess and music is kind of an apples and oranges thing. And if you're not willing to concede that, then maybe apples and pears. Now, I'm not saying aesthetics is out of place in chess. Like a lot of players, I'm a fan of Fischer's (when he actually was a player). I would argue there's more beauty in, say for example, Bobby's loss to Tal at Curacau in '59 than in a lot of Petrosian's wins that go on for a million moves till his opponent resigns out of boredom. But the Fischer loss didn't advance his standing, and it is an objectively inferior game than a win....... Well, if you'll excuse me, I gotta' go split some more hairs.....
"Bobby's loss to Tal at Curacau in '59..." Do you mean Curacao 1962 ? And do you mean Tals loss to Fischer as Tal didnt beat Fischer in that tournament. Or do you mean some other tournament in some other year and we get three guesses.
OK I know the answer to this one, it is Robert Goulet, he is my favorite! Although the Sex Pistols they are very good too.
Yes, raul72, you're correct. My mistake. I meant the '59 Candidates Tournament in Yugoslavia (remember that place?) Thanks for pointing out my blunder. I corrected the post. You know, when I checked, I saw that Fischer lost all four of his games to Tal! Nothing "beautiful" about that for Bobby.........
I was never one to unreasonably revere another for anything. People are people, born with talent, or lack of it, beautiful to look at or ugly, smart or not. Always think about the price one must have payed to rise to the top. Often it's huge and often, it's not worth it. Look at Tiger Woods. Once the greatest golfers in the world and now, what? What about Fischer? Mozart died at 35.
Play your game, try to improve, and have fun. There's something really beautiful about being 1000-1200 and knowing that you're someone who reaches out to another when they need your help, too.
I admire your zen-like optimism, rogrot. And your advice to chessplayers is pretty good, if rather vague. But what's your point about Woods and Fischer? How directly were their downfalls related to the games they played? Interesting subject......Was Tiger's plunge the result of his philandering and bad driving? Or was his drive to excel at his craft also to blame, maybe more so? And what about Bobby? Did he go off the deep end because he focused too intensely on chess, to the exclusion of all else, or was he just nuts all along? Van Gogh and Gauguin both sacrificed normal lives for their art. Both died impoverished and both were kinda' crazy at the end. Monet, on the other hand, also made great sacrifices early on, but died at a ripe old age and rather wealthy. So who knows? Wasn't Alekhine quite a boozer? Did chess drive him to drink, or was it the other way around? I'm sure the alcohol took it's toll on his health. But I think the world is a better place, a richer place because of his beautiful games, and Vincent's and Paul's paintings........
Ronster, I like your thoughts.
I don't know the answer. There's much to be made by Big Brains out of what having a Big Brain means. The older I get--I'm soon 70--the more I believe that none of it means very much in the overall scheme of things. I don't even get that much of a kick out of thinking about it anymore because I always arrive at a dead end. I guess that's why some people turn to religion.
Re: your thinking the world is a better place..." then for you, it is, but I think it will be a better place when we rid it of human greed for money and power and there is true egalitarianism. Big Brains being what they are however, I'm not optimistic that this can happen.
But, this is a chess site and I digress :-)
Referring to polydiatonic's post #27: Thanks for the rather neutral adjective "strange" to describe my comment. They've been called worse, and probably deservedly so. But as to your argument on the superiority of Beethoven's later work over his earlier, it was very interesting, informative and "pretty". I have no doubt most serious students of his work would agree. But can you prove it objectively? Sure, you can prove one composition is longer than another, or has more notes, but you can't prove one work is "better" than another. It's a subjective assessment. Not so in chess. A game won by a guy playing blindfold is "better" than one he loses when he plays without the blindfold. The proof is in the result. My point is comparing chess and music is kind of an apples and oranges thing. And if you're not willing to concede that, then maybe apples and pears. Now, I'm not saying aesthetics is out of place in chess. Like a lot of players, I'm a fan of Fischer's (when he actually was a player). I would argue there's more beauty in, say for example, Bobby's loss to Tal at the Candidates Tournament in '59 (their 4th game) than in a lot of Petrosian's wins that go on for a million moves till his opponent resigns out of boredom. But the Fischer loss didn't advance his standing, and it is an objectively inferior game than a win....... Well, if you'll excuse me, I gotta' go split some more hairs.....
Regarding Beethoven, early and late. My point was not that later Beethoven was BETTER than early Beethoven but rather that the music was more MATURE. Young Beethove could not have composed what mature Beethoven composed. B's later music was far more challenging (think late quartets) than his earlier music which was more easily understood (digestable) by the listening public. Your idea that there is an objective measure of the quality of a chess game as evidenced by the result on the score table is rather silly. For instance there are many games that are decided by virtue of numerous blunders. These games are not of a high quality in any sense and yet by your arguement the "won" games should be considered of higher artistic (chessic?) quality than wonderfully and masterfully played games that are eventually drawn, i.e. no winners. Also, to digress into silly land, what about a game which is adjourned and the player with the huge advantage has a heart attack and dies or for whatever reason cannot resume the game? Here the quality of the play had no impact whatsoever on the result on the scoretable. I now claim victory in our little kerfuffle. Poly +1
Hi polydiatonic remember me? I see you're still up to no good. and to entertain this silly post, you don't even mention Chopin. Chopin was revolutionary in music, a poet of the piano, able to put into music that which could never be properly expressed in words. Mozart and Beethoven's era (The Classical era) was confined by many musical rules including a ban on rubato. So their music doesn't quite measure up. Unless there is one single man that revolutionized chess to such a powerful and magnificent extent, there is no one that is to chess, what chopin was to music.
and before you argue with me, my credentials:
1. 10 years piano playing
2. 5 years violin playing
3. 4 years flute playing
5. dabbled briefly in guitar and recorder
6. ardent music theory student
7. wide mental library of classical composers and music.
Hi polydiatonic remember me? I see you're still up to no good. and to entertain this silly post, you don't even mention Chopin. Chopin was revolutionary in music, a poet of the piano, able to put into music that which could never be properly expressed in words. Mozart and Beethoven's era (The Classical era) was confined by many musical rules including a ban on rubato. So their music doesn't quite measure up. Unless there is one single man that revolutionized chess to such a powerful and magnificent extent, there is no one that is to chess, what chopin was to music.
and before you argue with me, my credentials:
1. 10 years piano playing
2. 5 years violin playing
3. 4 years flute playing
5. dabbled briefly in guitar and recorder
6. ardent music theory student
7. wide mental library of classical composers and music.
Hello Terror, I'm not really sure what you're bantering about...Is your point that I left Chopin off my little "who's who" of composers? The list of visionary and masterful composers, while not endless, is certainly very lengthy, as such an ardent student of "legit" music, such as yourself must know. I will quibble with you just a tad when I point out that great composers stand, as great chess players, on the shoulders of their masterful predecessors. I believe that Kasparov has written widely on this specific subject with regard to his chess and his debt to a variety of historical chess players. So, if your point is that Chopin, who I agree was truly a poet, deserves mention with the Bach, Mozart and Beethoven I will provisionally agree with you. However, the differnence between the 3 composers I mention from your hero, Chopin, is that unlike the masters I mentioned, Chopin was a master of the "miniature". So "poet" is an apt description for him. The master that I revere were composers on a grand scale. For the "generation of the 1830's, of which Chopin is considered a core musical member the miniature composition was king. In fact he struggled mightely when it came to long forms, as did many of his compositional colleagues. Until Beethoven's death the Piano Sonata along with the piano concerto, were considered to be the quintessential compositional vehicles for piano; the classical period showcasing and expanding the possibilities of solo playing while enriching the sonata (form) and ancillary forms. It is worth noting that when you look at (arguably) the three (or 4) greatest composers for the Piano from the Romantic era, Chopin, Shuman, Liszt and Mendelsohnn and even expand beyond to include Brahms you'll find, perhaps a dozen sonatas for piano and even fewer concertos. What does this tell us when we realize that Between Beethoven, Mozart and Hayden alone we have over 100 sonatas? What does it tell us that Mozart himself composed 27 concerti, Hayden composed 14 and Beethoven (only) 5, but what 5 they were! It tells us what all music historians know, and that is that when the generation after Beethoven came into their own as composers they looked for a very different path in order to "step out of the great shaddow of Beethoven". So Why am I telling you all of this? It is because while your revere for Chopin is I'm sure honest and true as well as deserved "hat's off gentleman" (google it) it must, I say MUST viewed in the context of his historical place.
A final point, "revolutionary", in music (or chess or art) is not the measure of greatness. There have been many, many artistic revolutionaries who have failed for a variety of reasons. The main reason, I believe, being a lack of artistic authenticity. However to claim that Chopin was somehow more of a "revolutionary" as you clearly imply than Beethoven is simply SILLY. Chopin was forced to be "revolutionary" in order to find his own voice...
Given that the only sounds you might get from a chess game are throat clears, groans and grunts, a belch or fart and the sound of a pawn or piece hitting the board, could you two take up how this might bear on arriving at a meaningful comparison between chess and music. Thanks.
Given that the only sounds you might get from a chess game are throat clears, groans and grunts, a belch or fart and the sound of a pawn or piece hitting the board, could you two take up how this might bear on arriving at a meaningful comparison between chess and music. Thanks.
wow you are a wet blanket. We are at least trying. What are you doing? I'll tell you: you're complaining because you don't like how we're trying? Here's a thought, try contributing to the thread in ANY SORT OF A MEANINGFUL, be it serious or humourous and then perhaps someone will give cr.p what you're saying...
Mozart had the best melodies but Kaspy was stronger in the openings....
I agree. Just a thought. Those catchy, memorable and imaginative heads that Charlie Parker was so well known for would equal the openings (heads) of only one chess player - Garry Kasparov.
Great topic. 
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I failed to make my point that I really would like you to consider the element of sound and why you're not injecting that into the argument.
When one watches or reads a chess game, he can marvel at what turns out to be a "beautifully crafted victory" which may, by the way, have as much to do with how the opponent moves as it does the victor, but I maintain that "beautiful" there means something different from how it applies in music. Why? Sound.
Now, if you could translate/transcribe chess moves into sound--which would really be a stretch--I have to wonder if the result could be called music.
Anyway, again, I'm sorry for offending and now, terribly sorry for butting in. 70 years old and I still haven't learned to keep my mouth shut!
BTW, which is more beautiful, a rose or a dahlia?
I challenge the ridiculous assumption in post #14 that a computer will one day "outcompose" Mozart. According to that logic, a computer will one day "outpaint" Raphael or "outwrite" Shakespeare.........
You gotta stop listening to Harold Camping. I am sorry about 1994 (Camping prediction #1), 1997 (Deep Blue vs Kasparov II), and this year (Camping prediction #2). Seriously, keep your stuff. But I do agree with you that in spite of his erroneous predictions, he is generally correct, it is only a matter of time...