The caption said, 'American dollars versus African francs - everything is a chess piece.'
The Great Money Game
© Flickr user failing_angel under
Creative Commons.
African franc? See Wikipedia: CFA franc. Other tags: Tate Modern, Meschac Gaba, Museum of Contemporary African Art.
Look at the position in the following diagram. Can you tell what the previous moves were? Before you leave in a huff, muttering, 'Another stupid question from a stupid blog', consider the following three variations:-
Each of those variations leads to the diagrammed position, but the final positions are not at all equivalent. The first variation is a normal open game, the second is a line where White can't castle, and the third is a line where Black can't castle.
A few months ago, in a series titled Practical Evaluation, I wrote a post about less known material imbalances: One Imbalance Leads to Another. One of those imbalances was
where '1.0' is the well-known value of a Pawn. Ever since encountering that statement by GM Kaufman, I've wondered if there was any way to verify it. I've also wondered about the value of castling O-O as opposed to O-O-O. Armed with the three variations at the beginning of this post, I can plug the resulting positions into an engine and record the results.
Of course, there's no reason to choose the position after 1.e4 e5. I could have also chosen 1.d4 d5, or 1.c4 c5. I could have also invented positions identical to 1.e4 e5, where one or both sides have forfeited the right to castle to one side or the other. Looks like I have a neat little tool for further exploration.
***
Later: In fact, the moves 1.c4 c5 don't serve the same purpose, because they don't provide an outlet for the Kings. The moves 1.f4 f5, would do the trick, although the esthetics aren't the same.
More wallowing in the past, ala Fifty Years Ago in Chess Life.
Can you identify the player? The event? [The answer is in the comments.]
Last week my post about Magnus Carlsen Interviews focused on print interviews. This week I'll cover some video interviews.
The first interview, from a year and a half ago, Magnus Carlsen - The Colbert Report, borders on the silly when the Norwegian GM is challenged to a game of rock-paper-scissors. There is, however, one revealing moment.
(Q:) Do you see the board differently than a normal, average not-genius? (A:) No, not really. I just see the board, the pieces, everything. I think of patterns -- what to do next and so on -- but the pieces in general are just tools for me. (Q:) So they don't talk to you. [laughter] (A:) No, not too much. [01:35]
The next interview, Rainn & Magnus Carlsen get Metaphysical over Chess, also has a few silly moments, but there is one insightful exchange. [See also Rainn battles Magnus Carlsen in CHESS - Metaphysical BONUS!.]
(Q:) Some people view success in chess as you have to be more of a warrior and some people view chess as you need to be more of an artist. Which would you say that you are? Which of those is more true? (A:) I think I'm more of a warrior than an artist. I like to find some kind of art, some kind of beauty, in my games, but the main goal is to win. That's the warrior. [02:20]
During the March 2013 Candidates Tournament in London, the BBC conducted a couple of interviews. While neither of them approached the BBC's usual standards, they are still worth reviewing. Both are linked from a Chess.com forum post: BBC interview with Carlsen 19/3/2013. The first is a radio interview.
(Q:) Jon Speelman said of you, 'He plays on forever, calmly, methodically, and perhaps most important of all, without fear. This makes him a monster and makes many opponents wilt.' Is that how you see yourself? (A:) Being a monster is fine to me. (Q:) You see it as a war. (A:) No, it's just about -- as he says -- to keep the game going. I'm not so concerned with possible evaluations during the game: whether I'm winning or losing. I just try to make the best moves, sometimes the moves that are most unpleasant for my opponents. More often than not, I'm going to get there in the end. [00:50]
The second is a studio interview shared with Agon's Andrew Poulson, who does more talking than Carlsen. Magnus manages to make at least one excellent point.
(Q:) What's the dynamic between you and one of your big rivals when you're a meter apart playing in a match that matters so much to each other? Are you aware of the other person or is all of your focus on the board? Is it like playing a computer for all you care or does the other person matter? (A:) The other person matters. There are certain psychological elements. Sometimes you make decisions that you perhaps wouldn't have made against a computer because you think either for humans in general or for that particular opponent might be difficult to respond to. That's part of what I like with chess. It's psychological warfare at the board. When you play computers you lose that element. [04:07]
The next interview took place just after the Candidates' Tournament: Magnus Carlsen - interview with the new world title challenger. The 'situation you got into' refers to losing two of the last three games, which nearly gave the event to his main rival, GM Kramnik.
(Q:) Do you have the feeling that before or during the tournament you did anything wrong? Anything that could have saved you from the situation you got into? (A:) Probably during the game with Ivanchuk, at some point in the game I was just too casual. After all, I wasn't exactly used to losing. I always thought that if things go slightly wrong I will rectify it by making some strong defensive moves. It was a wake-up call for me, for sure. [12:00]
The final interview is Charlie Rose & Magnus Carlsen.
(Q:) Why do you think you're so good? What is it about your experience, about your game? (A:) I really wish I knew. Maybe I will in 20 or 30 years, when I'm older and wiser. I've spent a lot of time on chess, obviously, and I've developed a feeling for the game. I calculate well, and so on. But there are many others who did the same hours, who have the same dedication, so it's hard to say. What I do know is that the game somehow comes naturally to me. [02:15]
In a previous post I featured a different excerpt from this interview: Carlsen on Confidence. I'm sure we'll see more interviews in the coming months, especially during the title match with Anand.
This ongoing series about Top eBay Chess Items by Price depends heavily on an image of the chosen item. For this current edition I had the choice between a bound set of the'"Deutschen" Schachzeitung 1846-1848' (sold for US $2455 after 7 bids) and the item pictured below, an 'ANTON CHOTKA LAMP WITH "TWO MEN PLAYING CHESS"'. The photo of the book was as uninteresting as you might expect, so I chose the lamp.
The Chotka lamp, which sold 'Buy It Now' for US $1200, was described only as
Anton Chotka (1875-1925) COLD PAINTED BRONZE FIGURAL LIGHT - Cast as two Arabs playing chess upon a carpet, one seated on a bench below a lantern. At a private auction, a lamp like this went for $9,000. It is an amazing lamp. The lamp itself works. See the pictures. A wonderful piece to own.
I couldn't find much about Chotka on the web, and there is some disagreement on his life span: 'Anton Chotka (1878-1928)' and 'Anton Chotka (1881-1955, Austrian)'. Is art history even more unreliable than chess history?
'All you need to know about chess is this: it's like the wind. Resist it and it will break you. Go with it and you can sail across oceans.' • 'What does THAT mean?' • 'I don't know, but it sounded good.'
Brain's Chess Mess (11:01) • 'Arthur - Season 16'
Wikipedia: Arthur (TV series).
Arthur Read, the series's titular character, is an anthropomorphic eight-year-old brown aardvark who lives in the fictional town of Elwood City. He is a third-grade student at Lakewood Elementary School.
'Blatsky's Book of Classic Games'?
In the most recent post on my World Chess Championship Blog, Averbakh on the World Championship, I rediscovered an old story that is resurrected from time to time. GM Averbakh included it in the section 'Who judges the judges?' from his book 'Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes: A Personal Memoir'.
One very difficult question is what to do if the players agree a draw in advance, and just go through the motions of playing a few moves and then shake hands. This happens especially often in the final round, when the players and prizes are already settled. I believe that such games, in which there is no real battle at all, should not be counted, either for rating purposes, or for the awarding of titles.
But what should the arbiter do if the players agree a draw on move one? This is what happened in the last round of the World Student Team Championships at Graz [Austria] 1972. The final round saw the match between the USA and the successful German team, who were in third place.
Here's how GM Pal Benko described the incident in his 'In the Arena' column of the November 1972 Chess Life. Benko was captain for the U.S. team.
I was surprised to discover that the game -- or one of its several versions -- found its way into Chessgames.com (see Robert Huebner vs Kenneth Rogoff; WchT U26 19th fin-A 1972), into Chessbase.com (see 2009 ChessBase April Fool joke), and even into a Youtube 'instructional' video (see English opening - Huebner vs Rogoff).
For more about Rogoff, see Kenny Rogoff as You've Never Seen Him and Fischer on the 'Rubbish' Defense, on this current blog.
Averbakh's suggestion that such games not be rated would have prevented the rating manipulation I condemned in Next Short Draw: 2750.
Posts
All Comments
