Descending Olympus

Some people know me; some don't. I've been here pretty much since the doors opened and my purpose has always been to share stories about chess, something I've tried to do throughout about 1000 blogs and a couple hundred articles (until chess.com decided my writing didn't reflect the "chess.com brand," whatever that might be).  Since it's always been obvious to me that both these avenues, blogs and articles, are mainly read by a certain ready type of audience - e.g. those who follow you, those who seek out specific topics, those who look for chessic things to read or people predisposed to whatever being presented - at the same time these two avenues tend to bypass possibly my favorite audience: people who have had little exposure to the history and culture of chess but suddenly find there is more to this game than its 64 squares and 32 pieces.  I've posted many dozens of chess articles in the forums over the years hoping to inspire or at least kindle the flame in these very people.

Bear with me, I do have a point.

Recently, @introuble2 published  a blog on Nicolas Rossolimo and in the comment section, my acquaintance, the dear, sweet @Kamalakanta convinced me to seek out David Bronstein's posthumous book, "Secret Notes," of which I found an e-book this morning.  The book contains a forward by Garry Kasparov which is headed with the title, "Teacher of the World."  I have found that Kasparov's writings are generally as honest as they are informative and this seems to be no exception.  As it's title suggests, Kasparov praises Bronstein's contributions to chess, but then has this to say:

Talking about Bronstein's contribution to chess, I should like to begin with the fact that after Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch he is one of the most brilliant popularizers of the game. In former times every leading player aimed to write a book, and even better - a primer, and the standard of chess literary mastery was very high. Unfortunately, with the years this fashion has al most died out. The great chess books of the post-war era can be counted on the fingers of one hand! In fact there is a whole mass of books, and there are some incredibly prolific authors, but all these are in the nature of transitory booklets; whereas epoch-making books, influencing whole generations of chess players, are very few in number. And, I think, this is primarily because the very art of popularizing chess, explaining it and trying to reach a very wide audience, is disappearing - in short, making a book a genuine instructional manual , which is precisely what distinguished Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, despite their very different views.

I had never thought about any of this before and having it thrust in my face by someone worth listening to made me agree. There's a constant stream of chess books being written by talented players, but very, very few with the quality and time-proven sustainability as some of the classics, especially ones that address the basic principles of chess (in my area of interest, chess history, the opposite may very well be true - better books are being written now than 50 years ago). 

Kasparov puts Bronstein in the same rarified arena as that of Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch ( more so than even Lasker and Capablanca) and makes the case --something I've always believed-- that even though he never became a World Champion, not having the title detracted nothing from Bronstein's accomplishments and, in fact (my opinion) made the accomplishment of some of the players who did earn the title pale in comparison.  This tells me that the title of Word Champion say something but definitely not everything. And the obverse of that coin isn't quite as obvious, but as Kasparov explains:

In one of his recent interviews Bronstein bitterly let slip: if he had won against Botvinnik, everyone would have fawned upon him. And he is right. I think that, had David lonovich won that match (and on the play he deserved to win , in my opinion), his ideas would indeed have been listened to more, and chess itself could have taken a rather different course. I don't know what he lacked , but he did not become world champion. Which is a pity. Because as regards his depth of chess understanding - depth, and not only originality (Larsen was also original, but he was a long way behind 'David the great'), Bronstein undoubtedly ranks alongside the champions.
His games have enriched chess with numerous original and fresh decisions. In the 1970s and even the 1980s I followed Bronstein's games with interest, and in each of them there could appear a bright, surprising idea, which had not occurred to anyone. He possesses his own unique vision of the chess board , which with the years has possibly been transformed into eccentricity. But sometimes behind this eccentricity are concealed brilliant ideas, which enable Bronstein to be ahead of the time.
I am sure that his diverse activity has yet to be properly appreciated , since among the post-war generation of grandmasters he stands apart precisely by the amount of what he has done in chess. And, unfortunately, a large part of this rich heritage has not yet been comprehended by us.

So, while World Champions are important when we discuss chess, as all chess-players are wont to do, the realm of chess extends far beyond that Olympian height and what we who worship at the shrine of Caïssa should realize is that the real Champions are those who descend from that mountain and shine their aura on the beauty and wonders that the game has to offer us.

Your articles on chess history didn't reflect the sites brand? Why?

I also noticed you do not have a mod or staff member icon.

Probably too cerebral and not enough mentions of Magnus and Nakapookie.

Ask chess.com

I am asking the op.

I don't know. I just know what I was told when I was removed as an Article Author. It was more "we want articles that reflect the chess.com brand"  which, logically infers mine didn't.  This was precisely the same moment in time I was removed as a moderator.  I can only assume my moderation didn't embrace the chess.com brand either. 

But this thread is more about Bronstein, the relevance of chess beyond world champions and the change in quality of chess authorship since the more classic periods.

I'd never heard of Bronstein's "Secret Notes."

As for:
"And, I think, this is primarily because the very art of popularizing chess, explaining it and trying to reach a very wide audience, is disappearing - in short, making a book a genuine instructional manual , which is precisely what distinguished Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, despite their very different views."

It's interesting to note how times have changed. Kasparov equates popularizing chess to a very wide audience with informing a very wide audience. These days popularizing chess means to entertain a very wide audience. The entertainment route, while perhaps intellectually displeasing, might be more a more effective tool.

All of this (which books are good, and how to balance entertainment and instruction) is tangentially related to pedagogy, a casual interest of mine. Leaving aside reasons such as profitability and marketing for why good instructional books may not be written, it's interesting to note that being "dry" or uninteresting is often levied against otherwise informative writing. The great books stimulate both the imagination and the intellect... which leads us back once again to your intro, your interests, and chess.com's role in all of this.

I don't really have a point, just some thoughts after reading your post.

Oh, and as an addition to my previous post here.

I've often wondered about how much a teacher should leave up to the student. I talked to a professor once, and when I summed up one set of ideas with an easy to remember statement (as if to say, this is how it could be taught), he said "yes, but that's not a good way to teach it." I often wonder what exactly he meant by that... as if leaving a trail of bread crumbs and letting students find their own way was better. Maybe there were other skills or knowledge to be learned in the journey itself, that sort of thing.

Which are the sorts of things I think about when you bring up chess.com's actions, your areas of interest, and popularizing / educating the masses in general.

After a discussion with one of my professors, waaaaay back when, i said something to the effect that “it’s just me i suppose…” he then said profoundly as only one with a Doctorate degree could say, “if the learner ain’t learnt, the teacher ain’t taught.” I enjoy BG’s posts, but realize they aren’t typically comprehended in the amount of time it takes to operate one’s cell phone with one’s thumbs. Keep ‘em coming!

I think Kasparov might have been referring to books that tried (and succeeded for generations) to advance overall chess understanding as opposed to books that give lines, variations, annotations or only superficially addressed chess principles. or sensationalize the subject matter (How to Beat the Closed Sicilian!) 
I think the best books are the ones that make us work and make us think for ourselves. It seems the trend has gone from looking at somethings deeply (qualitative) to looking at more things quickly (quantitative). So people don't generally set up a position from a book on a board and play through the given variations and relish the ideas presented by the author but rather, they play through a game on a digital interface and say, "cool," then go to the next game.  Quantity isn't bad but superficiality isn't particularly good (although one might make an argument for repetition of themes).  Whether we like it or not, learning has a direct correlation to the amount of effort expended.  Great books entice us to put forth that effort with a smile.

I share the interest in chess history and chess thought. The next chess biography I wanted to read actually was the Sokolov one on Bronstein and how he was plagued by the shadow of Botvinnik his whole life.

I wish I had a trusted source for all the behind the scenes stuff regarding Botvinnik and any sort of game fixing that did, or did not, happen in the 50's.

I have"Bronstein's" (true authorship is in question) Zurich book that I never finished, but it had an eye opening explanation of weak square complexes that when I read it was such an "aha" moment, my confusion was apparently the same as the author, whoever it actually was, and made it clear to me innjust a couple of sentences.

I wonder which books Kasparov regarded as the few great chess books of the post war period.

In a sense, it was easier for players like Steinitz Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, as they lived during the transition from romantic to scientific chess. Today "hypermodern" is an almost comical misnomer, being some 100 years old, but in terms of "epoch-making" it was the last great revolution. What do modern players have to write about besides rehashing old ideas?

Which is why I'd want to know which books he calls great, and perhaps someone like Anand or Kramnik could comment on how chess ideas have changed over the last 50 years.

I'd guess Tarrasch's Das Schachspiel and Nimzo's Mein System and Chess Praxis.  Tarrarch became known as the Teacher of Germany (Praeceptor Germaniae) due to his writings, particularly in the Deutsche Schachzeitung  which he edited. Nimzo's books have inspired generations, even today's.

John Watson "Secrets of modern chess strategy" certainly has new ideas. It was sparked in part but the revolution in chess thinking due to computers.

It is becoming apparent that AlphaZero is going to continue the trend.

Interesting

I always thought Larsen was amazing at writing for amateurs, his ”Find planen” gives 48 positions like this one, and asks the reader to evaluate the position and come up with a plan and move. Here it is white to move in Rubinstein vs Nimzowitsch 1928. How do you think if you are Rubinstein in this position?

Larsen means that white is slightly better with bishop pair and more space, and talks in detail about how plans like Ne2 or Nh1 followed by g4 and a pawn storm look good. But the more one looks at it, the more one gets annoyed by that bishop on d2. Maybe at some point it would be better if it had something else to do than stare at pawns? f5 could be played then? No, why give that nice e5 square for a knight, and make the other bishop more restricted. Maybe it could be placed on the long diagonal instead? But when? Hardly after black has played a4 and a3! No, it should be done now! So Bc1!!

Larsen gives the remainder of the games with more comments of the sort and is a good teacher. I found the few books I have read that were intended to make one play better both boring and rather badly written, but Larsen is really a brilliant writer.

If chess.com done that to me, I sue the pants of them.

Why would I do that?  I had no monetary damages and they have the right to operate their site as they see fit even if I totally disagree with them and consider their decision a sign of gross ingratitude.  

Plus, who wants to see chess.com with its pants down?

Kasparov mentioned Larsen: "Yes, there is Fischer's excellent book, and the books of Larsen, Botvinnik and Korchnoi, but no one has devoted so much attention to the popularization of chess as Bronstein."