Names and players and something else,
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:05 am
Of late I've been irked more than usual by things I both read and heard such as 'He played Capablanca', 'not the sort of thing Petrosian would do', Lasker played his usual stuff'.
I just don't get it, we all know elite players change over time and modify aspects of their style, some much more than others. To hear 'Capablanca liked to play for the endgame', well yes in later years perhaps so but the young Capablanca didn't.
It seems as though, all you need to do is refer to a player and never have to provide much if any context, like the tournament, stage of their career, age, recent form, political climate. What is wrong with chess players and their view of what history is? Saying 'this was played by so and so means nothing beyond the raw data from the scoresheet.
Is it that providing background information requires effort via attention to detail? I'm talented at what I do, leave the serious stuff to the academics. Is that the mindset? Without knowing state of mind, preparation, form and agenda, contextualising each game, glossing over all that by saying the unchanging entity of 'xxxxxxx' then did that as if the same thing happened in every game. About 4 times last week I had to ask, well exactly which Capablanca are we referring to here? He did change as did his play, his life full of change of course. Bloody obvious if you ask me.
In chess its always: chess, chess, chess, never research, cross-referencing, further research. Lasker v Capablanca. Alone means nothing. I do hope those who comment and write find better things to do and better themselves. Simplifying everything down to raw data is rather daft, and as we know how chess is accounted for generally is at variance
If on a video a game from yesteryear is introduced, how players were when they approach the board is so often overlooked even though its essential. Always the easy way out in chess when its discussed. Effort and academic pedigree are a slippery slope to doing more work and having less time to muck about. Apologies, I get these daydreams where 'a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets' to use a line from Taxi Driver, thinking it will rain down on chess commentators and so-called writers. But names are names and require no further explanation -bah humbug.
I just don't get it, we all know elite players change over time and modify aspects of their style, some much more than others. To hear 'Capablanca liked to play for the endgame', well yes in later years perhaps so but the young Capablanca didn't.
It seems as though, all you need to do is refer to a player and never have to provide much if any context, like the tournament, stage of their career, age, recent form, political climate. What is wrong with chess players and their view of what history is? Saying 'this was played by so and so means nothing beyond the raw data from the scoresheet.
Is it that providing background information requires effort via attention to detail? I'm talented at what I do, leave the serious stuff to the academics. Is that the mindset? Without knowing state of mind, preparation, form and agenda, contextualising each game, glossing over all that by saying the unchanging entity of 'xxxxxxx' then did that as if the same thing happened in every game. About 4 times last week I had to ask, well exactly which Capablanca are we referring to here? He did change as did his play, his life full of change of course. Bloody obvious if you ask me.
In chess its always: chess, chess, chess, never research, cross-referencing, further research. Lasker v Capablanca. Alone means nothing. I do hope those who comment and write find better things to do and better themselves. Simplifying everything down to raw data is rather daft, and as we know how chess is accounted for generally is at variance
If on a video a game from yesteryear is introduced, how players were when they approach the board is so often overlooked even though its essential. Always the easy way out in chess when its discussed. Effort and academic pedigree are a slippery slope to doing more work and having less time to muck about. Apologies, I get these daydreams where 'a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets' to use a line from Taxi Driver, thinking it will rain down on chess commentators and so-called writers. But names are names and require no further explanation -bah humbug.