Media comments on chess

[Matt Bridgeman]

Kevin >
I was pondering last night that if you accepted chess in the Olympics, you would also have to accept bridge...<

Both bridge and chess are recognised by the IOC. The organisers of each Olympic games could always offer either or both. Monopoly is a gambling game and is less likely ever to be accepted, as is poker.
Paris 2024 makes a great deal of sense for chess -FIDE started there in 1924.
I met the secretary of the British Olympic movement in Parliament some years ago. He said he had nothing against chess in the Olympic games from a technical angle. He just thought there were already too many sports clambering to get in.

With The Queen’s Gambit now watched by 62 million households globally, the timing could be brilliant!

[NickFaulks]

With The Queen’s Gambit now watched by 62 million households globally, the timing could be brilliant!

It would certainly tweak the interest of the anti-doping community.

[David Sedgwick]

As above, it just takes one person say 'Beth Harrison' and now it's stuck.

I recall an earlier Specimen

[Roger de Coverly]

Nona Gaprindashvilli was less than pleased

Looking at her playing record in the 1960s, it appears with only the occasional exceptions she only played male players outside of the Soviet Union. Trips to the West could be seen as rewards for loyalty and good behaviour and Western countries would not at the time have been able to field challenging opposition beyond the male players.

[Kevin Thurlow]

The "i" codeword in the puzzles pull-out centre piece for November 21-22 2020 contained the word "Zugzwang". For the uninitiated, you get a crossword grid with numbers inserted and you have to determine the words therein using a simple substitution cipher. The "i" has the habit of making this difficult, e.g. by making "E" the 4th most common letter in the grid, or in this one using words like "Zugzwang", (which might perplex non chess players), "taxiing", "twelfth", "optima", "adieu"...

I didn't take a month to solve it, I take the puzzle section out and look at it at random times later.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Private Eye Christmas issue (no. 1537) is rather good. Two chess things this time.
In the spoof adverts in the centre pages, for "Queens Gambit fans", "Giant upside down ceiling chess", with warnings like "Magnetic pieces may not stick to the ceiling". "Price £19.67, step ladder and tranquilisers not included"

(Possibly even better than this were the "Boudica shopping trolley spikes" to aid panic buying and the "Coronavirus press conference box set, running time 2788 hours 17 minutes")

Book review of "Queens Gambit" page 35. The review comments that the TV series is highly acclaimed but warns that the book (published in the 80s) is very unpleasant in places (e.g. underage sex, racist language, and even not feminist), and also er, has lots of chess moves in it, which will not excite everyone. They also say that the writing is uneven, sometimes very good and sometimes poor. The conclusion is that the TV series is much better and readers may well not get what they expect from the book. PE reviews of books are usually scathing, and this is more positive than that, but I take their point that new readers might expect something like the TV version.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Kevin, thanks I'll pick up my copy tomorrow.

Cannot wait till Private Eye review my book



Meet Linda Hoe who marries a Russian and they name their son Ivan.
Ivan Hoe learns how to play chess and wins his game by moving only his knights.
He has a trainer called Lance Allot and falls in love with Gwen Avire....
(I have put together 199 pages of this!)

Also this. (a bet I put on last year when Hearts were bottom of the league)



I could have cashed out at 3-3 but stayed with Hearts for the £33.00. it's only a £1.00
(Mrs C. said cash out else you will moan about it all night. She will moan all Christmas Day, now I cannot afford a decent present )

[JustinHorton]

Peston

[Stewart Reuben]

Geoff >I could have cashed out at 3-3 but stayed with Hearts for the £33.00. it's only a £1.00<

That is all wrong. If I understand you correctly, the first bet was £1. You could have cashed that in and received £10.75. You continue the bet, then either you would receive nothing, or would have received £33, probably less William Hill's take..
My fifth Rule of gambling is to run your profits and cut your losses. Also presumably you could have placed a bet on the other side and ensured a profit, irrespective of who won.
I suspect you did not follow the fourth Rule either: Always have an edge.
If not winning £10, means you really cannot give your wife a decent present, then you have broken the first rule. Never gamble with money you cannot afford to lose.

[Tim Spanton]

But he could afford to lose it - he's not paying the price, his wife is

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Stewart,

No the cash in means the bet stops. I would have got £10 and that's it.
I could have hedged my bet and put some money on Celtic just in case but the sum was so small
(My Christmas dinner gag was just a gag) and being a Hibs supporter I was in a win-win situation.

Never more than £10.00 a week on my wee bets and I've stuck to that for 40+ years.
The people in trouble try to win their money back. You have to let it go.

My usual bet is correct scores. Perm any 3 from 6 at 5p a line = 20 bets - £1.00 and a 20p roll up. Total £1.20
If 3 come in (6 or 7 times a season) you get round about £15.00-£20.00. had 4 a few times, never five but six came up in 1992.
(I got the cheque for £27,271 then put 50p e/way on a random nag and walked out. No idea if it came in.)

These online sites. like Tombola, I always thought were a bit iffy till Mr C. won a couple of grand. (twice!)
and £500 a few times. I try it and win 50p's. I hate her.

Regarding a Christmas present, I kept asking what she wanted and she kept saying she wants nothing.
Can you imagine what Christmas Day would be like if I got her nothing. It's nag-trap I have avoided.
(a years sub to 'Guns and Ammo' and an engraved pink flick knife...don't tell her I wrote this.)

Merry Christmas Stewart, you look after yourself.

Geoff

[Stewart Reuben]

Geoff,
SEASON''S GREETINGS. Look after yourself and your family.
Another of my 5 Rules of gambling is that you must have an EDGE. In my case this was that I was a better poker player than most of my opponents; counted the cards at blackjack; or assessed the likely outcome better than most punters in the Wimbledon tennis (I won every year I bet on that.)

Yours seems to be that you enjoy having a small flutter. That would mean nothing to me. I just enjoy winning. I have now retired.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Stewart,

Yes small flutter, a wee hobby, but with potential a mega jack pot. That is my risk free edge.
It also how I played chess, a pawn or piece flutter. I lost some but the wins were glorious.
I went to a casino once, I did not bet, 'Geoff get out,' Geoff left the building.

The most I gambled and lost was £75. I won £75 on 4 numbers in the lottery. Then, I had an idea.
Ideas are bad in Chess, first to get an idea losses. Ideas are also bad when you have windfall money in your pocket.
My idea was buy 75 lottery tickets, back then they were £1.00 each. Surely I'll get another 4 numbers and some with 3 numbers.

Not even one ticket paid out £10.00. (3 numbers) I lost the lot. I was totally gutted.
(of course Mrs.C knows nothing about this that is why I still have both my ears.)

[Stewart Reuben]

I gambled at chess in the following situation.
If I assessed that I had a bad position and would eventually lose; then I would sometimes try an idea which I knew had a big flaw. If my opponent saw it, then I would simply lose quicker. If he didn't, then I would be back in the game.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hello again Stewart,

Quiet here. I guess no football commentators are using chess metaphors this weekend.

Mrs C (horses) and son (football) picked up good money today courtesy of Billy Hill - I flopped.
went for too many outsiders. And of course there was this - will I ever learn?