I went through all your blogs (unless chess.com is hiding some) and I didn't see any with the term "Soviet cheating in FIDE competition" in the title. I did see one on Go Topless Day though. I don't know if there's a connection.
Descending Olympus
Sort:
”The series of articles all contain the phrase "Soviet cheating in FIDE competition."
There were several of them. The Soviet chess apologists on site contend that Bronstein, Gulko, Korchnoi, Sosonko, etc. are not credible sources”
My impression of Bronstein and Korchnoi is that they said many things that can’t be taken at face value. In discussions of the 1951 match this is a standard description:
”The KGB forced Bronstein to throw the match by threatening to kill his father if he disobeyed. Bronstein gave details of this in a book published either towards the end of his life or after his death. He said something like this < Following the 22nd game, in the 23rd game I saw suddenly my father seated between two policemen ( or soldiers or militia or KGB people) and realised that if I drew the game my father would lose his life.> The KGB arranged this display for Bronstein's benefit and Bronstein got the message. He threw the match to Botvinnik and avoided getting his father killed”
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54195
I like Bronstein and never liked Botvinnik, and wish Bronstein had won that match, but I don’t think the various descriptions of this sort ring particularly true. Also Korchnoi is a complicated person that one doesn’t by default have to consider more credible than anyone else. It’s easy to make things a bit too black or white, and make it a question of good guys vs bad guys when most of them were both complicated and contradicted themselves quite a lot.
Oct 11, 2021
0
#64
batgirl wrote:
I went through all your blogs (unless chess.com is hiding some) and I didn't see any with the term "Soviet cheating in FIDE competition" in the title. I did see one on Go Topless Day though. I don't know if there's a connection.
They are in the "Chess News" forum.
Here is an example: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-in-fide-competition-zurich-1953
Go Topless Day is only worth it when the weather is warm 
lol what a wuss jamie , its the icy wind that really brings out the goosepimples
Oct 11, 2021
0
#66
So true. I could never understand those who swim in icy water ... remember the movie "Titanic"?
Oct 11, 2021
0
#67
ashtondayrider wrote:
llama47 wrote:
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.
Interesting parallel with the term "pedagogy" here, roughly speaking the word originated from ancient greek meaning "to lead a child". If you're engaging with pedagogy then you are leading the learner on their learning journey rather than simply presenting them with information.
Obviously I have no idea what the professor meant but there's a term in education called "scaffolding" which might help explain why the easy summary statement was rejected in favour of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, as it were.
When building a skyscraper, scaffolding will go up ahead of and around the building, but when the building nears completion the scaffolding comes down slowly. Eventually it's withdrawn entirely and the building stands on its own.
So rather than teaching through an easy summary statement, a lot of teachers will act like a scaffolder, slowly building upward from a low starting point, adding levels of knowledge piece by piece to slowly assemble the knowledge needed to support a concept and then slowly withdrawing themselves until the student is standing on their own (in a 2 hour, 90 question exam which begins.......NOW).
Hmm, that's interesting.
I know for me, in chess, I don't feel like I've really learned something until I can make enough sense of it to sum it up (so to speak).
Actually, now I'm realizing this is sort of the capstone. I work and work and work on something, and then in the end, I write myself a little instructional piece that summarizes, compares, and contrasts all the important points... I guess the point is you can't jump straight to the capstone. That sort of thing only makes sense after you've done all the grunt work.
But ok "scaffolding." I know I've heard the term before, but I'd forgotten about it. I'll have to look into that idea.
Oct 11, 2021
0
#68
What the heck ! "Didn't represent the Chess.com brand " is not an explanation...but an ugly corporate copout excuse for an explanation. what are they thinking ? scary... Their loss..big time...and unfortunately we readers of your words also. Big thanks For all your efforts, BG
It's very much a mix, with endless articles on pogchamps and streamers and chess memes and stuff that I guess is supposed to appeal to the young, but also amazing high quality stuff like
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski
The problem is maybe rather what people want and like to comment on. The beyond words inane article listing the five most overrated players ever has 461 comments. Spektrowski once translated a long Russian interview with Kasparov and his coach of many years, Nikitin. It has five comments. Others are totally uncommented, long posts on great players of the past with extensive quotes from otherwise not translated works, like
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/fyodor-dus-chotimirsky-memories-part-3
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/aron-nimzowitsch-quothow-i-became-a-grandmasterquot-part-2
As a comparison, this article has 105 comments...
https://www.chess.com/article/view/football-week-three-quarterbacks-chess
llama47 wrote:
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.
I couldn´t agree more. But there are so many subtleties and variants (how do we qualify a good or excellent chess teachers -what is called now "influencer I guess"-, or put him/her above others, how do we compare ...). Me, being just an amateur, always find myself in a position of not commenting, to avoid showing up my ignorance, but cannot help but wonder to what extent we can consider those (Tarrasch and Nimzov) better than others. It is said that Nimzovich ideas are not that good, did not pass the test of his peers and future masters, and the center stays, and now we have Alpha Zero and its side pawns bringing new ideas (is A0 the new "influencer").
Again, excellent and most interesting article, Batgirl
Oct 12, 2021
0
#71
llama47 wrote:
ashtondayrider wrote:
llama47 wrote:
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.
Interesting parallel with the term "pedagogy" here, roughly speaking the word originated from ancient greek meaning "to lead a child". If you're engaging with pedagogy then you are leading the learner on their learning journey rather than simply presenting them with information.
Obviously I have no idea what the professor meant but there's a term in education called "scaffolding" which might help explain why the easy summary statement was rejected in favour of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, as it were.
When building a skyscraper, scaffolding will go up ahead of and around the building, but when the building nears completion the scaffolding comes down slowly. Eventually it's withdrawn entirely and the building stands on its own.
So rather than teaching through an easy summary statement, a lot of teachers will act like a scaffolder, slowly building upward from a low starting point, adding levels of knowledge piece by piece to slowly assemble the knowledge needed to support a concept and then slowly withdrawing themselves until the student is standing on their own (in a 2 hour, 90 question exam which begins.......NOW).
Hmm, that's interesting.
I know for me, in chess, I don't feel like I've really learned something until I can make enough sense of it to sum it up (so to speak).
Actually, now I'm realizing this is sort of the capstone. I work and work and work on something, and then in the end, I write myself a little instructional piece that summarizes, compares, and contrasts all the important points... I guess the point is you can't jump straight to the capstone. That sort of thing only makes sense after you've done all the grunt work.
But ok "scaffolding." I know I've heard the term before, but I'd forgotten about it. I'll have to look into that idea.
It comes from child psychology and learning but I think transposes well into adult learning as well.
If you're into that sort of thing, it's also worth looking up some of the theory it aligns with, like the zone of proximal development (this all goes back to an educational psychology theorist called Vygotsky).
The ZPD desribes the key zone in your learning between where something is easy enough that you don't need to be taught (e.g. how the horsey moves) and so difficult that nobody could feasibly teach you (e.g. how to beat Carlsen).
What you want is your teacher/professor to be giving you maximum assistance and guidance at the outer edges of the middle circle (where things are at their highest level of difficulty but just about achievable with some help) and then slowly withdrawing their assistance as things move inward to the "easy zone" (e.g. the first time you learned about knight forks to the point where you don't need anybody to point out an opportunity/threat of one).
Oct 12, 2021
0
#72
fiddletim wrote:
What the heck ! "Didn't represent the Chess.com brand " is not an explanation...but an ugly corporate copout excuse for an explanation. what are they thinking ? scary... Their loss..big time...and unfortunately we readers of your words also. Big thanks For all your efforts, BG
Thanks Tim. That's my take too.
Oct 12, 2021
0
#73
fabelhaft wrote:
It's very much a mix, with endless articles on pogchamps and streamers and chess memes and stuff that I guess is supposed to appeal to the young, but also amazing high quality stuff like
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski
The problem is maybe rather what people want and like to comment on. The beyond words inane article listing the five most overrated players ever has 461 comments. Spektrowski once translated a long Russian interview with Kasparov and his coach of many years, Nikitin. It has five comments. Others are totally uncommented, long posts on great players of the past with extensive quotes from otherwise not translated works, like
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/fyodor-dus-chotimirsky-memories-part-3
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/aron-nimzowitsch-quothow-i-became-a-grandmasterquot-part-2
As a comparison, this article has 105 comments...
https://www.chess.com/article/view/football-week-three-quarterbacks-chess
95% of people read fluff articles. They require no effort, no discriminatory thinking, no prior knowledge or understanding, no search for truth and appeal to those with no real desire to learn. It just so happens, that's chess.com's target audience. I guess it all works out.
batgirl wrote:
95% of people read fluff articles. They require no effort, no discriminatory thinking, no prior knowledge or understanding, no search for truth and appeal to those with no real desire to learn. It just so happens, that's chess.com's target audience. I guess it all works out.
Anything to do with a lowering, eroding cultural level of general population with robotized/lobotomized mind?
Oct 13, 2021
0
#75
RoaringPawn wrote:
batgirl wrote:
95% of people read fluff articles. They require no effort, no discriminatory thinking, no prior knowledge or understanding, no search for truth and appeal to those with no real desire to learn. It just so happens, that's chess.com's target audience. I guess it all works out.
Anything to do with a lowering, eroding cultural level of general population with robotized/lobotomized mind?
Of course not. The masses have have always been that way, and groups with specialized interests have always been small.
Did you know that, after the drawn championship match versus Botvinnik, the Soviets referred to Bronstein as "vice world champion"?
Nope. That's the first I've heard that. That was a particularly, ummm, interesting match between opposing styles and political strata during particularly interesting times.
I have quoted from Bronstein's "Notes" in several of my articles on Soviet "sporting tactics."
This would have been a good time to have provided direct links to those articles.
Bronstein's book is terrific.
Thanks, Sarah. The series of articles all contain the phrase "Soviet cheating in FIDE competition."
There were several of them. The Soviet chess apologists on site contend that Bronstein, Gulko, Korchnoi, Sosonko, etc. are not credible sources. But I find ex-Soviets' exposés to be entertaining.