Yes, he was probably referring to creativity and originality in those ancient games, and maybe the pleasure watching these games generate in comparison with the actual ones.
This can be true, but the quality of GCT chess games is far higher than the ones played in Zurich (which is natural due to the lapse of time).
Yes, he was probably referring to creativity and originality in those ancient games, and maybe the pleasure watching these games generate in comparison with the actual ones.
This can be true, but the quality of GCT chess games is far higher than the ones played in Zurich (which is natural due to the lapse of time).
Yeah, very interesting. It was a little disconcerting to hear another guy say that the book wouldn't be recommended for improvement, that maybe 20% of the games give 80% of the quality, etc. Well, I am not strong enough to say the games of any grandmaster are below standard when that grandmaster would probably quickly destroy me if he appeared sitting in front of me, over the board. I'm just glad to try to learn from the geniuses. But yes, its all interesting. Thank you for your response!
No creo que el ajedrez de hoy puede ser mejor o mas sorprendente que al de antes, puede haber mejores tecnicas o variantes mesprofundas, pero el ajedrez-arte no tiene cambios, nunca. Yo sigo sosteniendo que el ajedrez es como la musica, y es dificil querer decir que los musicos de antes no son mejores a los de ahora.
Sí, este también es mi sentimiento.
I like the way you said that! I once said that I play chess because I can’t play music. And someone said, “It is music!” To some the analogy is mathematics. I also like mathematics ~ but only the beautiful poetry.
Gracias por tus palabras. I need trabajar en mi español! 😆
The ChessReina speaks true. I see you said you play more beautifully than an engine, & I saw your move 13...Nh3! yesterday.. your actions are consistent with your words!
And this comparison to music is a fundamental difference - for we usually don't evaluate any competently and beautifully composed music in terms of its accuracy, or quantify its correctness. Yes, again, there is something to think about.
I was just listening to the Perpetual Chess Podcast, and I heard an interview with Andy Soltis talking about the famous Zurich 1953 Candidates tournament. Referring to the actual quality of the games in that tournament, he said, [paraphrasing] "there is not a single game played in the recent Grand Chess Tour that would rate with the top 30 games of Zurich." I thought this was an interesting observation, considering how we think chess has progressed over the years. There is the notion: The games of Zurich might not stand up so well to "engine accuracy" but they might be regarded, nevertheless, of greater quality than most games played at the top level today because incomparable ideas were invented at this time, including opening ideas in the KID and Nimzo-Indian, etc. - all done by the mind with zero computer assistance. It makes me wonder if something of the art is being lost in modern chess; and yet, the chess of our top players today is enjoyable to see, in many instances. There is probably something there to think about. Is it the case that the chess of the Classical Era, 1960's and prior, was in some way more beautiful and more interesting, and had more ingenuity and creativity, than what is played today?