Just another site

Chess Mirrors Chess.

leave a comment »

A difficult mate in 3 problem by Tavariani for these ugly fall days.

During the past ten years I have been taking down  what I read and thought I had to remember. I have filled up several notebooks up to a point that it is impossible to remember everything. The notes comprise summaries of books, analysis of chessplayers’ styles, my own notes about different aspects of Chess I considered worth remembering, and so on. Some weeks ago I leafed through the notebooks to see how my vision might have changed. Not so much. But I found -here and there -some intersting stuff: several quotations and brief notes like pieces of advice. Some of them are mine, some by Chess GMs borrowed from their books. In some I had written the source, others are simply between inverted commas…

In my opinion, when you devote yourself to Chess -in the same way if you devote yourself to any other artistic endeavour-, it is important not only the practical side of it but the philosophical side too. In a few words: I play Chess and from time to time I need to “think” about Chess.

I am going to include some of that material here just in case it helps you to find inspiration for your own practice, or to help you to understand why you correctly do some things or why you do somethings when you shouldn’t. I hope it may be of some use.

“But what is risk in Chess? A game of Chess , in the beginning, developes itself in a “neutral zone”.(…) Getting out of that zone is a long and difficult struggle on which the opponent has also a word to say” J.M. Yvinec (This is a clear explanation of how Chess is played today. Mainly among the elite…)  And I have found a related quotation of which I have recorded no author: “Nowadays, it is very difficult to surprise an opponent in the opening unless you are able to play a strong novelty. (…) In fact, the problem in a game is to be able to create an advantage.” 

“And once you have achieved an advantage, the next level of complication is how to win a winning position” (I  think there are two different concepts: that of “winning position” and that of “won position”. In my opinion they are not always used correctly: For me a winning position may require a lot of technical effort to be resolved -in some cases I have seen the marks +- /-+ to indicate this idea and later the game lasted for over 30 or more moves…- A won position I understand as a position with an immediate result)
“Half of the variations which are calculated in a tournament game turn out to be completely superfluous. Unfortunately, no one knows in advance which half” J. Timman.

I. Marks on CC errors wrote: “People don’t see things because they don’t see them. If your thinking faculties short-circuit, it makes no difference whether your opponent is three feet or three thousand miles away.”

Tarrasch: “When you don’t know wat to do, wait for your opponent to get an idea -it’s sure to be wrong!”

Dr. Tartakower once bitterly complained that “Today -his day- they do not play Chess, they play variations”

(If he had seen what is happening today he would have fallen dead!)

Abrahams: “The nature of Chess is happily such that neither player can seize an advantage by mere reason of moving first or second” -I love this one!- (Suba also said: “There is no difference or advantage between playing the White or the Black pieces”)

H. Berliner on CC: “Strategy is the name of the game in postal Chess. With proper strategical decision-making , a small advantage can be nurtured and expanded step by step and a hapless opponent can hope for nothing more than a difficult draw. In this type of struggle many a strong  player will crack.”

Karpov’s play is characterized by smooth ,flowing positional play, always cramping and restraining the opponent, always consolidating his position, always reducing a complex set of strategical plans to a series of deceptive but clear-cut smashing moves. He is always grouping and re-grouping, always probing, always setting new problems to the opponent, always exerting pressure in such a way that every of the possible answers of his opponents’ part has a certain drawback. (One of the best definition I have for Karpov’s Chess approach to Chess.)

Bareev: “The world’s leading chessplayers know how to wield all sorts of Chess weapons equally well, and a crucial role is played by psychological factors such as flexible thinking switching quickly from solving positional problems to finding tactical finesses and vice versa.”

B. Larsen: “When moves are far from forced, long variation, wrong variation”

Suba: “Even the best players cannot neglect the strategical aspect of the  game, both static and dynamic. A glaring violation of the principles of strategy in the opening cannot be overcome by heroic play afterwards.” (Many examples of this, but the first one that springs to my mind is Karpov-Browne ,San Antonio (USA) 1972: 1. c4 , c5 2. b3, Nf6  3. Bb2  g6  and 4. Bxf6 !!!? Karpov won in59 moves in a rather technical way)

Tarrasch: “It is not enough to be a good player; you must also play well.”

Solution: The key move is 1. Qc5!!



Written by QChess

October 25, 2012 at 6:44 am

Posted in CHESS, Personal opinion

Tagged with ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: