Now I am hungry.
"blindfold chess" and calculation
Sort:
tonydal you a master...of course it will be easy for you. For us patzers it is a small miracle that someone can complete a complete game "blindfolded".
Oct 31, 2010
0
#24
uhohspaghettio, Thanks for repying. I am going to reply to your last reply tomorrow, I hope.
I am watching the World Series and using my wife's laptop at the same time. This is not a good compination to write serious replies. I am used to using my Natual Keyboard and I make many mistakes with this keyboard. Plus, I want to spend some time reading again our comments to each other. I want to be certain I word what I write carefully so I do not say anything that will further any misunderstanding between us. For me, typing with this keyboard is like typing handcuffed.
Nov 1, 2010
0
#25
uhohspaghettio, here is my reply.
This is how this all began to save you from going back and checking the posts.
post #16
30th October 2010, 11:36am#16#6 by Crosspinner
United States
Member Since: Aug 2010
Member Points: 284
I read in The Fireside Book of Chess that once in the Soviet Union it was unlawful to play blindfold chess. As it went on to say, didn't the government realize a master sees 10 moves ahead that is a form of blindfold chess?
Also, in the same book: Beethoven composed masterpieces of music and he was deaf, and Arthur Ford Mackenzie composed chess problems and he was blind.
Here is the direct quote from the book The Fireside Book of Chess by Irving Chenev & Fred Reinfeld on page 72:
“Chess is thought so highly in the Soviet Union that it is taught in the public schools. Yet, blindfold play is forbidden by law! (Do they not realize, we wonder, that a master player analyzing a combination ten moves ahead is really playing blindfold chess?)”
This reply came on post #8.
by TomBarrister
Florida United States
This is a joke by Finnish player/writer Poul Hage, and it was plagiarized as legitimate by Fred Reinfeld (who did a lot of plagiarizing) and repeated in a book he wrote and in another he co-wrote with Irving Chernev. You can find an article about it here:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3990
Notice he wrote: (who did a lot of plagiarizing)? What am I think?
So, after reading those and then reading what you said: “I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong.” I wondered what else might be wrong in that book, so I asked, “Can you proof it? I mean, if the author is wrong about this, perhaps other things in the book are wrong, too. I entered something else form this book on another thread and someone posted a site to prove the author wrong. It makes me wonder just how actuate the author’s information is.”
I thought I made myself clear, in that, I was curious as to what was true, and if you could prove it one way or another such as TomBarrister in post #8 did, I wanted to know about it. However, now that I consider it, I could have used different words, such as, “ Why is this wrong?” instead of “Can you proof it?”
I am glad you did reply, because it gives me a chance to attempt to clear this misunderstanding up. Please let me break it down.
You wrote: “We can have a civil discussion. (I thought that I was being civil.) But the thing is that you spent much of your post arguing (I thought I was asking and discussing.) with the premise that I said or maintained that, including what I thought to be mocking (This word shocked me, because I don’t see any mocking in what I said.) examples of how maybe Rubenstein (I never mentioned him.) and all these authors could be wrong and was right. (I only wondered if they could be wrong on what was sent to about them in that thread.) Let's face it, you weren't actually wondering for a second if they were wrong were you? (Yes, I was, because of what information was sent in that thread.) So please give me a break about "civil discussion" when it's you who were saying those sarcastic examples (What sarcastic examples? Seriously, I don’t see any sarcastic examples. To me sarcastic means what I find in the distionary: marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt I just don’t find such things in what I wrote.) of how all of those might be wrong and me right. And it's impossible for me to say or retort anything apart from strongly stating that I NEVER said that or held that position, maybe there might be some way my post could have been interpreted as such. (Yes, I must have misinterpreted it.)
Writing in forums is new to me. I have read them on other sites, but never replied in them. Now that I have joined chess.com with the forums about chess, I’m hooked on them. But I now realize that I must be very careful how I word things. It is never my intent to belittle or in any way annoy people. I will call an ace an ace if I think it needs calling out, such as belittling women or children or abusing them or an under dog. But to deliberately belittle others, mock or be sarcastic, no, that’s me. I am very sorry about this misunderstanding between us.
I could play blindfold chess on one board when I was 13 years old, without any special training. However, my quality of play was not quite good and I would always have a headache after a game. I have since realized that only by grouping some of the pieces into chunks could I keep track of the game. Even then, I had trouble remembering where my pieces where. So, yeah you can try it if you are a decent player but your head might object a lot.
I read in The Fireside Book of Chess that once in the Soviet Union it was unlawful to play blindfold chess. As it went on to say, didn't the government realize a master sees 10 moves ahead that is a form of blindfold chess?
Also, in the same book: Beethoven composed masterpieces of music and he was deaf, and Arthur Ford Mackenzie composed chess problems and he was blind.
I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong. Russia/the old Soviet Union is a chess-playing nation, even more back then, and the government were very well aware of exactly what masters were capable of doing. In fact the reason they did is probably partly so that workers wouldn't play blindfold chess with each other while working and distract them from their duties.
Lots of people are masters. Masters can't automatically play blindfold chess without effort.... and can't see 10 moves ahead without effort. If you're calculating 10 moves ahead while looking at the board, that is much easier in a lot of key ways, than calculating it without looking at the board.
What might come close is the habit of some GMs to calculate without looking at the board. However due to the fact that the board is there in front of them, it wouldn't be illegal anyway. As long as the board is in front of them and available for view, it's not blindfold chess. As a law it does make sense.
Saying that "seeing 10 moves ahead is a form of blindfold chess" is objectively wrong.
So, far be it for me to defend vicious authoritarian regimes, but I won't just play along with something I know is inaccurate... which can in fact be a lot more damaging to the cause of good in the long term.
You have lost me, in that, I do not see anywhere in what I wrote anything about “effort”.
You wrote: “In fact the reason they did is probably partly so that workers wouldn't play blindfold chess with each other while working and distract them from their duties.” does make sense to me.
You wrote that you knew it wasn’t true that there was ever such a law. Can you proof it? I mean, if the author is wrong about this, perhaps other things in the book are wrong, too. I entered something else form this book on another thread and someone posted a site to prove the author wrong. It makes me wonder just how actuate the author’s information is.
Why is saying that looking ahead 10 moves is a form of blindfold chess is objectively wrong? When you play blindfold chess aren’t you visualizing the board and moving the pieces in you mind? I do. I do not play blindfold chess well, in fact, I have never been able to finish a game, but I do see the board, or diagram, in my mind. I am not picking on your reply. I truly am curious as to why you think that.
I NEVER wrote it wasn't true that there was ever such a law. I never implied it, I never said anything like that. You never read that either, I never said anything like that. So either you're imagining it, making it up, your reading comprehension is terrible, or a combination of them.
Saying that looking 10 moves ahead is blindfold chess is incorrect. Don't expect me to reply again.
You said for me not to expect you to reply, but you didn't say you wouldn't read my reply, so I'll reply. First, I was not picking you. Far be it from that. I thought this was an exchange of opinions and I certainly did not mean to upset you.
You said: " So either you're imagining it, making it up, your reading comprehension is terrible, or a combination of them." I have been guilty of all of those things at one time or another, so I went back and read again what you wrote that made me determine what I thought you said about there being no such law. I suppose I came up with that thought because your first sentence was: " I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong." To me, that implies there was not such law. If my comprehension, or any of those a other things caused me to misunderstand what you meant it was a misunderstanding on my part. I was not slandering you or accusing you of being lacking in judgement or anything of the sort. Why can't we have a civil discussion?
I even agreed with you about why the government may have had such a law. I asked for proof because if that was wrong the authors of that book may be wrong about other things. I only asked why saying looking ahead 10 moves wasn't a form of blindfold chess. Your only reply was: "Saying that looking 10 moves ahead is blindfold chess is incorrect." I still don't understand why it is incorrect. Perhaps I'll never know.
uhohspaghettio, I am truly sorry if I offended you. I only wanted to have a civil debate and exchange of ideas. I hope you reply.