English Chess Forum

Yes, you read that right - Matthew Sadler has just won a strong rapidplay tournament with a 100% score...

A correspondent wrote:Yesterday on Liberation Day in Holland (May 5) Matthew Sadler took clear first in the Wageningen Liberation Tournament scoring 7 out of 7, ahead of Timman, Daniel Fridman and other chess stars.

See for more information

http://www.svwageningen.nl/?p=1340

The crosstable at the website makes that a TPR of 3117 - not bad, eh? And, before you ask, I've no idea if this presages a return to professional chess. I'm guessing it was just a one-off. The 36-year-old hasn't played a game which has made it onto a database since 2004 but he is evidently keeping his hand in.

Fantastic, it is good to see him back in action. I do so hate it when a good chess talent wastes his powers by retiring, so it is especially uplifting when they see the rightious path and come back to the game.

That's different to my view. I hate it when I see a general talent waste his abilities by continuing to play chess when so many other options are available, though I am pleased when I see a little dalliance with chess as appears to be the case here. Matthew has a number of talents which will serve him better than a career as a chess player, so good luck to him. And he isn't the only one.

It doesnt matter whether he is a good manager, doctor, lawyer etc... How many famous people from those professions can you name? I can think of only a very few examples from such professions, whereas a great chess player can be immortalised through his games, and ultimately that is what such talents should be used for, so when the Simon Browns of this world are long forgotten, the matthew saddlers are still remembered with great awe and respect by the chess playing community.

Joey Stewart wrote:so when the Simon Browns of this world are long forgotten, the matthew saddlers are still remembered with great awe and respect by the chess playing community.

Clearly not memorable enough though for you to spell his name properly.

I spelled it right - it is the rest of you who are getting it wrong. I got it on good authority from a personal friend of Matthews that he is most annoyed at people using the single L version of his surname.

Let's be frank about this. I wasn't talking about fame, I was talking about cash and quality of life. Given his abilities, he will be better served outside chess. As for me, I doubt I will be forgotten by my children who will enjoy the benefits of my not having decided to pursue a career in chess, which admittedly wasn't a difficult one given my limited ability.

And have you ever asked a lawyer, for example, how many chess players they can name? If they can manage ten, I doubt Matthew Sadler would be one of them. And I bet they can name more than ten famous lawyers.

Matthew comes from Kent, as do I, and he started to play when I was active and when my late father played a big role in Kent junior chess, early to mid 1980s I guess. To my knowledge he has never had two Ls or even two Ds in his surname.

Joey Stewart wrote:I spelled it right - it is the rest of you who are getting it wrong. I got it on good authority from a personal friend of Matthews that he is most annoyed at people using the single L version of his surname.

Single L?? How are you saying his name should be spelt?

I have a feeling Joey wasn't being serious when he made that comment.

Hi Allex Hollowczak

No he's right, it's a double 'LL' in Sadller'.

Geoff Chandller.

Back to topic.

Well done Matt.

And now the debate.

"cash and quality of life." v poverty but fame and respect
from a very small fraction of the population.

I'd take the latter if it meant I could do nothing but play chess.
I hate work, it gets in the way of things.

Infact I'd settle for chess and no the fame or respect.

Hi Joey, (oops). famous doctors are all over chess.

Dr. Tarrasch, Dr.Nunn, Dr. McNab,... I even wrote a book with a Dr. Ruxton.

Geoff.

I've waited quite a while in the vain hope that some so called superior academics would point out the obvious references on this topic. Sadly not.

One might consider reading Andrew Oswald(Warwick Uni) stuff on Happiness related to money.

Its some of the most interesting stuff you can do in an Economics degree, public choice theory, rawls etc

My personal view is that in chess you have people like Colin Mcnab who went to oxford and got phd from dundee(citation needed for sure), in maths, he could probaly have sat inputting data and be on near 6 figures by his age now. Instead he did chess because he loves chess.

I do also concur however that if you wish to have kids etc then your own enjoyment becomes secondary to this.

Ben

Ben Purton wrote:My personal view is that in chess you have people like Colin Mcnab who went to oxford and got phd from dundee(citation needed for sure), in maths, he could probaly have sat inputting data and be on near 6 figures by his age now. Instead he did chess because he loves chess.

I think Colin got his D Phil from Oxford. I don't think you get 6 figures from inputting data (unless 2 are after the decimal point...). If so, I may be in the wrong job...

Geoff Chandler wrote:I even wrote a book with a Dr. Ruxton.

I hope his jokes were better than Keith's

Quality of life,happpiness,money...this stuff,which has been touched
on superficially in this thread,has been debated for eons by
philosophers.

Don't worry I'm not about to copy and paste millions of words about
this,but let's take for example Epicurus(b.341 BC).He considered that
as long as one had food,shelter and clothes,then friendships and
freedom are far more relevant in the pursuit of happiness and a good
quality of life,than the aquisition of riches.
Incidentally,He also dismissed power and fame as sources of happiness.

I can only speak for myself about this.We are all different of
course,but I made the decision to commmit to the chess life very early
on - in fact while I was still at school;and for me it is a very
pleasurable life.I have no idea what the alternatives are like,but to
commute to and from the same office everyday,9-5,for my entire working
life,is not something I would be prepared to endure for any amount of
gold coins.

I don't have kids,but there are many examples where children have been
well brought up using chess incomes,though I take Simon's point that
there is greater responsibility here to see to it that they are
provided for.

Regarding Matthew Sadler,again I can only speak for myself,but if I
had worked as intensely hard as he did at chess,both at the board,and
the rest of the time,then there is no way that I would have been able
to stick at it for as long as I have.

Quitly permeating all of this is the question ''should pro chess
players/GMs be looked up to or looked down upon;or should we be
respected or pitied?
My view is neither by definition,but just judge each individually,by
his or her own merit.There is simply no need for the kind of
generalised and innacurate drivel along the lines of:
". Grandmasters -
young and frequently in search of a girlfriend but without the money
to buy a woman dinner or the ability to make any small talk beyond the
latest innovation in the Ruy Lopez ...bla bla bla...'' that you
sometimes read when a chess story breaks.On this occassion by some
character called Stephen Moss in the Guardian during ''Gormallygate''
on 6/6 2006.
I guess this was written by someone who will never become a GM,and so who took the opportunity to make a cheap swipe out of revenge for that fact.

Yes, I do recall the relish with which the media informed us that Gormally still lived with his parents - even though this was obviously for financial rather than any other reasons