Elubas, he took his leave, and said that he hoped we would remember him forever.
Morphy vs. Modern GMs
Sort:
He said that he left to improve his chess, for which all this history talk is useless.
Lol jk, crederico said "I'm out, have fun" which I interpreted as asking for adjournment.
To Elubas....
He said " modern chess is not in any way a game of memory". I don't agree with You. Look at the lows of physics. Low of thermodynamicks teach us that disorder grows. It looks the same in chess. Modern GMs don't train sens of positional game but remember what a program play.That is fact that the ranking is degraded.
In the park where i play the older chessplayer with elo 2250 wins on regulary basis with youngers players with 2400 elo. Modern GMs don't work as hard as their great precedecessors. Modern tournaments are full of surprises. Why?
Because modern GMs don't understand as well positional chess as Morphy or Fischer. GMs do what comes easier. And the easiest way to reach for their computers progams.
No way?! You mean to tell me that someone ranked 150 points below can win!? Is that even possible?! No frikkin way!
I am serious. There are many older players in the park. I mean chessplayers belongs to the older generation play better then their younger opponents with a better elo.
Chessplayer who wins is fifty five. He beats the youngers chessplayers . His rank elo is 2100. His younger opponents have rank about 2300 elo. He wins with them regularly. That is a fact rank is degraded. I don't mean just chess. Look at the other areas. In the past when i visited a bookstore i seen Dostojewski or Gombrowicz or Hemingway and his "The Old Man and The Sea"
And now when i visit a bookstore i only see books about vampires. What the....
is that. And cinema? I don't remember an ambitious title of film. Wherewer i look i only see posters of Harry Potter or posters with vampires. The whole of our cyvilization is degraded. Chess is not exception.
When I was a kid the potatoes were this big (holds hands a head's width apart).
hermitt wrote:
To Elubas....
He said " modern chess is not in any way a game of memory". I don't agree with You. Look at the lows of physics. Low of thermodynamicks teach us that disorder grows. It looks the same in chess. Modern GMs don't train sens of positional game but remember what a program play.That is fact that the ranking is degraded.
In the park where i play the older chessplayer with elo 2250 wins on regulary basis with youngers players with 2400 elo. Modern GMs don't work as hard as their great precedecessors. Modern tournaments are full of surprises. Why?
Because modern GMs don't understand as well positional chess as Morphy or Fischer. GMs do what comes easier. And the easiest way to reach for their computers progams.
Well, it is debatable if their understanding, logic/talent wise, is on par with other greats like Fischer, but they do play better chess, mainly because of the advances of not only opening theory but positional and endgame theory as well, as that has advanced a bit too. So certainly this inflates their strength, but you can't at the same time claim they can't play. Now it may be true that a lot of their work is analysis of either their game (or previous games, often indeed used for opening decisions), or preparation for another opening, but that's because their skill is so high and that's one of the only practical ways they can expect to beat their opponent, by either confusing them or getting an advantage to pick at.
And I disagree rather strongly with your point of them not working as hard. Talent is one thing, but hard work clearly goes to the modern GMs, simply because they have more to work off of. They need to know what opening their opponent uses, how they should counter it, etc, and these lines can go very deep. Before that there was less opening theory, so I don't see your logic. What do you think they did all day? Just look at endgame manuals? They prepared for openings too, and that was still the best hopes of winning. A lot of strong (but clearly lesser) players who play fischer as white tend to get draws often enough, and this pretty much goes for anyone at that level. That's because of that tiny advantage, so you can see why people go so far to fight for it, often in creative ways, just that on the board they're playing out their creations.
hermitt: I agree that Twilight is absolute crud but Harry Potter, when you consider what it was supposed to be, is actually very good children's literature that, over time, transformed into very good fantasy literature. Maybe it's not to your liking, and no, it doesn't hold up to a Vonnegut, let alone a Shakespheare or a Dostoevsky, but that doesn't mean that it's horrible.
As for degredation of culture, I'd say that in the field of television, the media is in a golden age. You have shows like The Wire, Mad Men, Dexter, Life on Mars (UK version), and Battlestar Galactica (just to name a few), which have really pused the limits of what you can do with television.
In short, I don't think that there has been a sharp decline in culture over the last generation. Just another shift.
goldendog wrote:
When I was a kid the potatoes were this big (holds hands a head's width apart).
To Gambitknight....
Agreed! Herry Potter is great children's literature. But I don't understand why I only can find children's literature in adult bookstore:)
What about Tv. I know in U.S. are interesting series but in Poland we watch only porno series. Just kidding. I know series like dexter etc. but I see these series as suplement to copmany presentation. It is not an real art but that is bussinees.
But the true proof of degradation is my payment. Potter is not terrible but my earn is terrible:)
To Elubas....
Agreed! I know that chess opening evolve. I see how strong are Gms. But it hurts me that Tv tells us our era is finests. That is a fashion to prise our time. In my opinion it is a fictional thesis.
Games of Morphy or Fischer are monument of their genius. That is monument of greatness of our past. Today Gms look for money . Morphy, Steinitz were looking for secrets of checkboard.
hermitt: See, now we're getting into seriously murky waters. Namely: how does one define art?
Let's look at television, and the role of advertising. Does this affect the vision of the creators and what they actively put in their programs? To some degree, perhaps, but I would argue that their influence is nowhere near as great as that possessed by patrons moving forward all the way into the Enlightenment. In the end, I would say that that's all advertising is: the commercial age's own manifestation of patronage. With this in mind, I think it would be better to separate the companies and the studios from the programs themselves, just like we separate Mozart and da Vinci from their own sponsors, whose expectations indisputably held influence over their creations: the art lies in the drama put on screen. If one is going to dismiss this as a means to the end of making money, then one can also dismiss the other great artists as, likewise, they also tended to serve as means towards an end: for example personal, institutional or national self agrandizement.
As for economic downturn: I hear you on that end, and I agree with you. Economically, the times are absolutely wretched from that respect. This doesn't mean, however, that culturally speaking, things don't hold up to the past. If it did, and economics and culture are linked, that means that great artists who thrived during the 1930's, such as Fritz Lang and John Steinbeck, among countless others, can no longer be recognized as artists...
Gambitknight : thanks for this post. You write many very interesting things.
I think we can't define an art but we can define an artist. The great polish writer Przybyszewski said " an artist is a free man". An artist has to do what he wants to do. Our age is an epoch of money. The law is a fiction in hands of bankers. We can show it in a film The Matrix. The other film The signal show us what is TV. Tv is a tool for bankers. The role of television is advertising. Adult people work so children watch Tv. Sponsors pay artists for making films for children. It is not an art , that is children business.
I hate television. A contemporary artist is a prostitute.
Of course there is independent cinema there. Look at film Calvaire. Brilliant film. A true art. But very , very hard picture.
hermitt: I think your claim about today being the "epoch of money" is a disputable one. Society has, with a few exceptions, been mostly hierarchical for about as long as we've had civilization, and at the center of these social hierarchies is the issue of wealth. It's not the only foundation (we have ideology/religion and coercive powers, just to name two other potential landmarks), but it remains a major, inescapable factor in the vast majority of civilizations and cultures in history.
Personally, from this perspective, I don't think there has been a dramatic break from the past. An evolution, perhaps, but not a completely, structural transformation. True, there is more Social Mobility then there had been compared to the, for example, the Medieval Era, but this is more of a descriptive quality than a defining one. In essence of society has not changed, at least not from this perspective, just the particulars involved.
From that perspective, if you're going to define artists as individuals whose artistic vision is completely uncompromised, you'll have to remove many of the greatest creative minds in human history: da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Mozart, Haydn, Vergil, Dante, just to name a few examples, as they all had to find wealthier, more powerful institutions and individuals to patronize their projects.
As for television being a children's media, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. All one needs to do is look at the themes and the content of some modern television programs to see otherwise. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is, to a high degree, an allegory of the post 9/11 U.S. polity, primarilly focused on the conflict, during emergency situations, between security/survival and ethical principals. At its core, it questions what makes a civilization worthy of survival. The Wire, which unfortunately I've only seen parts of, deals with issues such as urban decay and the failures of institutions at all levels. These are deep, fully realized creations that have real vision behind them. They are not simply children's fluff but rather very challenging, very cognitive creations that hold up against any other form of drama. They are trying to say something about society and the human condition and, irregardless of how they might be funded, this, to me, is what makes them worthy of being called art, and their creators artists.
hermitt: as far as chess history unwinds, I do agree with you mostly on that part. (Personally, I don't think that modern day GMs are in it for the money: perhaps the money has improved since the advent of Fischer, but I can't see anyone making it to the highest levels in any field of endeavor without a real passion driving them.) That being said, however, as far as the chess itself goes, I do tend to largely fall within the same school of thought, more or less.
Essentially, to explain, while I can and do appreciate modern day giants such as Anand or Kasparov, I really can't invest myself in their games the same way that I can behind Steinitz, Capablanca (my all time favorite chess player), Morphy or Tal. As we've moved further, the quality of play, from a strictly scientific perspective has improved, I wouldn't argue that, but as theory becomes more and more extensive, you lose that creative spark, that sense of magic that existed in Lasker's day, when you were out of theory five or six moves into the opening. The objective quality of the games in question has improved but, at the very highest level, it's starting to get to the point where you don't know how much of the game lies in the realm of pre-game analysis and computer workouts, and how much lies in the creative problem solving and decision making that is worked out over the board.
Again, it's been the natural evolution of chess but I feel that, looking back on it, that with these steps forward, we've lost something beautiful and irreplaceable along the way.
Gmabitknight: Marx, Fromm , horney think we live in age of money. It is not just my opinion. An evolution concern single people. Society as whole is degraded.
Agreed. We don' break with our past. In hitory exists the same a game , a rule, a proportion. If You know the past You understand the present time.
What about issoue wealth. You are right . That problem is very important.
Freud said a lot of people , many people are angry , bad . in Many people exists
evil. It is hidden. But in the time of war or in relationship we can see it. I mean death instinct. Lust of power chenges people in mosnters. Watch the film das experiment. This film tells about it.
Elites are cannibales. I mean symbolic cannibales.
Elite , a real elite is elite of bankers. The govern. There are not politicis or presidents at political area. There are only bankers there. Welcome to a real government. They make wars or crisises . They earn the war or crisis.
I fear about Your Country. An international bankers want to eat Your Country.
Modern war is an economic war. Politicis are actors in hand of bankers. They are like modern artists actors in hands of sponsors.
What about chess. Agreed Morphy Fischer Anand Kasparov are in the same school of chess. Morphy was able to bring game on a new trail , road. It is enought to win Gms.
I have checked Your film. At polish the series portal there are a few sezons.
Poster scares. It looks like Rambo in space. I have checked notes. Are great.
People praise this film. I em gonna see it soon.
So basicly, memory is the most important aspect in chess, cause without it you won't remember the way to the club.
Good point
Although, I'd say being alive is even more important, if you aren't alive you can't play chess.
So it seems memory isn't the most important at all, being a living human being is.
lol, great post Tricklev.
So anyway, to whatever-his-name-is, I ask you what I did last post again: Do you disagree with my point?