Chess Statement Investigation Society

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Nick Burrows
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Nick Burrows » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:00 pm

JustinHorton wrote:Maybe it might be more respectful to people in the graves not to make up stuff about them, mmm?
I doubt very much these quotes are "made up". More likely loosely spoken anecdotes about things actually said.

My point is just that as chess players, many of us are quite high on the pedantic spectrum. Accuracy has a heightened importance to many of us.
To the majority of people, a quote that conveys the essence of what somebody said about an aspect chess, that may or may not be entirely accurate, doesn't matter that much.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:15 pm

Nick Burrows wrote:
JustinHorton wrote:Maybe it might be more respectful to people in the graves not to make up stuff about them, mmm?
I doubt very much these quotes are "made up". More likely loosely spoken anecdotes about things actually said.

My point is just that as chess players, many of us are quite high on the pedantic spectrum. Accuracy has a heightened importance to many of us.
To the majority of people, a quote that conveys the essence of what somebody said about an aspect chess, that may or may not be entirely accurate, doesn't matter that much.
And you can explain how we know that they're not "made up", and that they "convey the essence of what somebody said"?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Nick Burrows » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:12 pm

Simply that it is likely enough that they said it for me to trust it, the need to do academic investigative research to prove it is unnecessary because...it doesn't really matter

:)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:51 pm

This refers
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Mike Truran » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:07 pm

Simply that it is likely enough that they said it for me to trust it, the need to do academic investigative research to prove it is unnecessary because...it doesn't really matter
I can't help feeling that that's how a lot of German citizens felt in the 1930s......

I really have no wish to provoke a forum flame war, but I can't help feeling that Justin makes a good point.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8472
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm

Couldn't agree more.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Nick Burrows » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:11 pm

Well as David said earlier - Sometimes it matters. Othertimes it matters to some people (about 19 worldwide)

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Mike Truran » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:14 pm

Sometimes it matters. Othertimes it matters to some people (about 19 worldwide)
Or sometimes to around six million people (plus or minus).

Sorry to be polemic, but it's an important point.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Nick Burrows » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:52 am

Hence the caveat of sometimes. Of course there are many serious issues where exactness of wording and clear academic referencing is vitally important.
Life is too short to literally not be able to trust anything anybody says or writes unless it is academically referenced.
On a scale of importance, yes the murder of 6 million people is at one end. Right at the other, is the precise wording of what one person once said about a game.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:38 am

At the risk of going all Meta on Yo Asses, I find myself pondering the question of whether it matters that Nick Burrows* believes that truthfulness only matters if the subject crosses the personal 'sufficiently important' threshold of the speaker/writer.

If only time permitted my answer to this question. I’ll just have to leave you with this

"Women Shocked to Disccover bull**it is Dangerous"
https://twitter.com/quinncy/status/778297002371141632


tweet, for now.





*I use "Nick Burrows" here only because of his contributions to this thread. There are, needless to say, many people who hold similar views. If you want to discover precisely how many you may wish to try writing a series of posts on fanciful claims made about chess and health matters and seeing what happens.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:40 am

None of this thread matters to me at all which is why I only glance at it in moments of odd boredom.

However, its initial purpose clearly was of interest to some people who entered into the spirit of it with alacrity and were clearly deriving satisfaction from the discussions. I was happy for them that this was the case.

Since then, of course, that excellent discussion has been totally derailed and scuppered by people discussing whether the discussion matters,

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21322
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:07 am

Michael Farthing wrote: Since then, of course, that excellent discussion has been totally derailed and scuppered by people discussing whether the discussion matters,
I am reminded that in the first volume of Kasparov's books on world champions, there were some famous sayings quoted. Not all of them sounded quite right and it appeared they had been sourced from the Russian version and then translated back to English. In later volumes, the original English versions appear to have been used.

Some sayings are more accessible than others. Comments by Fischer in 60 Memorable Games are easier to trace than exactly what Korchnoi and Petrosian said or wrote about the Dutch.

User avatar
John Clarke
Posts: 719
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by John Clarke » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:07 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:In later volumes, the original English versions appear to have been used.
Wouldn't most of them have been made originally in languages other than English?
"The chess-board is the world ..... the player on the other side is hidden from us ..... he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance."
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21322
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:11 am

John Clarke wrote: Wouldn't most of them have been made originally in languages other than English?
They would, but there are established English translations. Nimzo's "My System" has particularly colourful language when rendered in English in the 1930s translations. Passed pawns "lusting to expand" or being "criminals to be locked up" are familiar concepts to those who read the originals.

Joshua Gibbs

Re: Chess Statement Investigation Society

Post by Joshua Gibbs » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:25 am

Michael Farthing wrote:
Since then, of course, that excellent discussion has been totally derailed and scuppered by people discussing whether the discussion matters,
i read this excellent letter today by GM Smerdon

Dearest Stonewall,

It’s over. I’m sorry.

It’s hard even to pen these words to you, though I’m sure that the pain will pass in time. But this has to be done; I’m breaking up with you, once and for all. Please don’t try to convince me otherwise – you know the effect you have on me. If you love me the way you claim to, you’ll let me go, for both of our sakes.

I know we said we’d be together forever, but sometimes things just have to end. You see, I just can’t put up with the hurt any more. Time and time again you burn me, only to suck me in once more with promises of improvement. “It’ll be better next time”, you’d say, staring at me with those soft f5-d5 eyes, pointing straight at the outpost of my heart. “Things just kind of happened, but it was only this one time”, you’d plead after yet another heartbreaking loss. “My love for you is rock solid”, you’d lie, as I’d watch yet another line of my defenses crumble under a white assault.

Like the lovestruck fool I was, I’d keep coming back, only to be burned yet again. It’s taken time, but I’ve finally summoned the strength to confront the brutal truth: you’re not to be trusted. And so, it’s over.

Sure, we had some times. Oh, how we had some times! The scent of the quick kingside mating attack, the beautiful positional grind, the flamboyant endgame finish. You sucked me in with your promises of a partnership full of joy and success, and there were times when I could really believe it. But, in the cold, harsh light of hindsight, I realise that those blissful moments stand sparse against the dense foliage of demoralising suffocation. When it was good, it was really good. But, dear Stonewall, those fleeting minatures just aren’t enough. I’ve had enough of your games.

Now that the decision to break up is final in my heart, I’ve allowed myself the small luxury of reminiscing about our relationship. I even remember the first time we met. I remember laying eyes on your gloriously symmetric pawn structure and being simply awed by the simplicity of your character. A few simple moves against any opposition and your true personality rang out loud and clear: a gloriously solid physique, beautifully elegant plans and such powerful domination of the e4 square. I recall your humble yet confident dismissal of the e5 weakness, the graceful movement and flow of the pieces under the strength of your command, and the inevitable magic that fills a room when you announce the triumphant reemergence of your c8 bishop. How could anyone not be attracted to such an aura? How could anyone not want to be a part of such exuberance forever? How could I not fall for your charm?

I remember the first time we were together. It wasn’t your typical romance – I wielded the white pieces for our first outing – but you’ve never been one for soppy conventions. I expected we’d take things slow, get a feel for each other and gradually explore the position we’d created – but you had other ideas. You had me well in your clutches, and before I could stop myself, I was falling, head over heels, doing things I never thought I would with an opening I’d just met. I’d expected a calm, restrained positional grind from our first outing, but as early as move eleven I found myself sacrificing a piece for a tantalising central attack. Mate followed moments later, and after such exhilaration I knew there could be no turning back. You had me at “f4″.

(http://www.chessvibes.com/davidsmerdon/ ... -tragedies)

I was young, naive, and overwhelmed with how you made me feel. But after our second date, I really should have known better. It was the very next day, and despite promising me all the satisfactions of our first time in the match against Nick Pert, you burned me right at the last minute. At first, I simply couldn’t believe you could be so cruel. But you were quick to defend your actions, claiming we were simply a “victim of circumstances”, that you’d never foreseen that things would go sour, and that your deserting me for Nick was “a one-off, never to be repeated.”

Like a fool, I believed you, to my peril.

As the games wore on, I found myself less and less enthused by the positions you placed me in. That centre of strength I so admired in those early days begun to appear weak, barely supported on a haphazard foundation of your lies. The e4 sparkle when you smiled began to lose its lustre, quickly dissolved by a brash f3 push. Suddenly, everyone seemed to want to play 1.d4 against me, as if they knew something about you that I did not. Time and again you promised me it wasn’t so, but the twinkle in the eyes of my opponents when I pushed my f-pawn seemed to suggest that something was going on. I kept on lying to myself, convinced that it was all coincidence, that their victories were due to chance and not because you’d allowed them into your intimate secrets. Of course, now I know it was all a ruse. Deep down, I guess I always knew that there were others, that your love for me was never as strong and commited as the pawn centre you made it out to be. I fooled myself into believing otherwise, but for months, the writing had been on the Wall.

(http://www.chessvibes.com/davidsmerdon/ ... ll-returns)

But Stonewall, the last Olympiad really was the final straw. Two draws from four games was more than my fragile heart could bear. The final match against Lubomir Ftachnik told me once and for all that you were not to be trusted. My captain, my friends and even strangers I’d never met before have been telling me for months you’re nothing but trouble, but it took until this game for the facade of your charm to finally give way to my own realisation. Even afterwards, you had the nerve to claim that we still had an equal endgame, that it wasn’t your fault my position immediately fell into cruel passivity at the hands of a seasoned expert. Yes, Stonewall, I know now just why he seemed so at ease in handling your structure. A little bird told me that you and him had flirted in no less than twenty games, that you’d given him all of your secrets, ignorant or more likely unaffected by the hurt it would cause me. I never stood a chance.

(http://www.chessvibes.com/davidsmerdon/ ... s-and-lows)

Oh Stonewall, you do have a way with the Grandmasters, don’t you? I don’t know how many others there were, and, now that we are finally over, I don’t care. I’ve moved on, at least emotionally. There isn’t anyone else, in case you were wondering – at least not yet. You’ve left a gaping hole in my repertoire, and it needs time to mend before I can think about you replacing me with someone else. But I know in myself that I’m a good guy who deserves a decent opening, one that treats me right, sees me through the rough patches, cares for me, and doesn’t leave me high and dry when I’m most in need. Already I’ve had a call from the Grunfeld, asking me out for a few blitz games at our local cafe. I had to decline – I’m not quite ready for that level of theory – but perhaps, some day, I’ll consider giving a kingside fianchetto another go. And the f-pawn will definitely be kept very much at home.

Now that it’s over, Stonewall, I want you to know that I’m not angry at you. I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction. But I do feel sorry for you, and even more so for those to come who fall victim to your appeal. Despite your outward allure, I know now that, deep down, you’re simply unsound. It hurts to know you kept it hidden from me for so long, but I’ll not lower myself to petty insults or immersing myself in any more of your childish games. I’m above that. You may have broken my heart and stripped bare my ELO points, but you’ll never take my dignity.

I’d wish you good luck and success in your future, but knowing now what I do about the permanent weaknesses of your structure and your complete disregard for your c8 bishop, I feel it would be wasted breath. So instead, let me finish by saying that I choose to remember the good times – the swashbuckling kingside mates, the dainty positional crushes, the enduring endgame pleasures – than the pain you caused me. It’s over, and if you care about me at all, you’ll be happy for me.

Take care of yourself, Stonewall, as best you can. Perhaps you’ll never be able to patch up your issues, but I’m sure you’ll find some poor young thing to fall victim to your charms in no time. Perhaps I’ll even come across the two of you in the future – of course, with me safely on the other side of the board this time. I won’t be jealous, nor will I be upset. In fact, if anything, I’ll be happy.
Because I’ll be ready for you.

Sincerely, but forever more not yours,

David