RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Historical knowledge and information regarding our great game.
IanCalvert
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by IanCalvert » Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:53 pm

John Upham wrote:Fans of chess history might find this video of interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BUZ2zyWRh0 :D
I certainly did.

Thinking of twentieth century UK, tactically creative players, is anyone really comparable, in chess terms?... I note Alexander has been suggested.

Colloquially who is/was the nearest to "Super Nezh" in twentieth century UK chess? What was the English combination of the century??

User avatar
John Clarke
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by John Clarke » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:13 am

IanCalvert wrote:Colloquially who is/was the nearest to "Super Nezh" in twentieth century UK chess? What was the English combination of the century??
Beliavsky-Nunn (Wijk-aan-Zee, 1985) would have to be a candidate.
"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: 16226
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:20 pm

IanCalvert wrote: Colloquially who is/was the nearest to "Super Nezh" in twentieth century UK chess?
When his ideas worked, perhaps the late John Littlewood, if you exclude the GMs from the 1970s onwards.

User avatar
John Clarke
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by John Clarke » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:25 pm

Ah yes: I overlooked that rider about non-GMs. Another possibility is Abrahams-Spencer (Liverpool 1930), which impressed no less a commentator than Emanuel Lasker.

"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.)

John Moore
Posts: 1641
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by John Moore » Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Nezhmetdinov used to be described as the only player to become an "official master", however you take that, at both chess and draughts. Tim Krabbe certainly says that in Chess Curiosities published in 1985 and I have seen it elsewhere - I wonder if that is still true.

Draughts, or checkers as the Americans will have it, always seemed to me to be a somewhat tedious game but that was probably because when I first started playing chess seriously sometime way back in the last century, the Chess club president, who was not very good at chess, liked to prove he was a better draughts player than me - and he didn't find that too difficult.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:18 pm

John Moore wrote:Nezhmetdinov used to be described as the only player to become an "official master", however you take that, at both chess and draughts. Tim Krabbe certainly says that in Chess Curiosities published in 1985 and I have seen it elsewhere - I wonder if that is still true.
If you count FMs, then no, it's not - Rawle Allicock is another such person.

Tim Harding
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: RASHID NEZHMETDINOV

Post by Tim Harding » Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:44 pm

John Moore wrote:Nezhmetdinov used to be described as the only player to become an "official master", however you take that, at both chess and draughts. Tim Krabbe certainly says that in Chess Curiosities published in 1985 and I have seen it elsewhere - I wonder if that is still true.

Draughts, or checkers as the Americans will have it, always seemed to me to be a somewhat tedious game but that was probably because when I first started playing chess seriously sometime way back in the last century, the Chess club president, who was not very good at chess, liked to prove he was a better draughts player than me - and he didn't find that too difficult.
The author [or translator?] of "Super Nezh" uses the American term "checkers" both in the text and in the list of prizes Nezhmetdinov won at draughts, but I suspect this is a mistake. As I understand it (maybe I am wrong?) the term "checkers" should only be applied to the 64-square game in which the ordinary men cannot capture backwards, i.e. the version of draughts mostly played in the British Isles.

It would be interesting to have a Russian source with examples of Nezh's draughts play as I suspect it's more likely he played the 100-square game (Polish Draughts also known as Dammen in the Netherlands), which is more interesting than the version of the game most people here are familiar with. Maybe there are examples somewhere in Shakmaty v SSSR which used to have draughts articles I think?

There is also a 64-square version in which the ordinary men can capture backwards, and I believe Spassky's sister was an expert at that. Unfortunately I don't have a reference but as I recall some western interviewer asked him a question along the lines that he had heard she was a draughts master, but Spassky replied that she didn't play the really difficult (i.e. 100-square) form of the game.
Tim Harding
Historian and Kibitzer

Author of 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography' and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Post Reply