She reads books Magikstone. Do you know what they are? They are made of paper and have letters of ink in them. You should try some books. I'm sure your chess will improve massively! ;-)
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Apr 6, 2015
0
#943
batgirl wrote:
Nick Pope wrote "Harry Nelson Pillsbury American Chess Champion."
Philip Sergeant wrote, "Harry Nelson Pillsbury's Chess Career," but good luck in finding it.
I have the volume "Pillsbury's Chess Career" by P. W. Sergeant and W. H. Watts. It was originally published in 1923.
Dover Publications published an edition in 1966, with nine additional games and a new foreward by Irving Chernev, as well as errata correction. This paperback volume is readily available used.
Apr 6, 2015
0
#944
How about PW Sergeant's "A Century of British Chess." That's a book I covet.
Apr 6, 2015
0
#945
batgirl wrote:
How about PW Sergeant's "A Century of British Chess." That's a book I covet.
It is available: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00085UDPO
Apr 6, 2015
0
#946
Ziryab wrote:
batgirl wrote:
How about PW Sergeant's "A Century of British Chess." That's a book I covet.
It is available: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00085UDPO
Thanks. I get it as soon as I win a lottery. :-D
I've spent more on less.
I bought this about a year ago when it was only $30.
http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Endgame-Vol-Semi-Open-Pergamon/dp/0080377777/
Nice investment.
Apr 6, 2015
0
#949
I rarely get to brag about my books. I got both volumes for $7, but that was about 20 years ago.
batgirl wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
I know about all of them
I'm not so sure you do.
The facts don't seem to bear out any notion that Steinitz was that superior, if superior at all, to Tarrach or Tschigorin.
Although Steinitz beat Tschigorin in the first match convincingly and less so in the second match, their overall results were pretty equal. Chessgames.com gives 59 games played between Tschigorin and Steinitz. Of those Tschigorin won 25; Steinitz won 26 and 8 were drawn. Almost a deat heat.
Steinitz and Tarrasch never played a match. Chessgames.com show only 4 games between Tarrasch and Steinitz of which one game was drawn and Steinitz won 0 of the remaining three. Steinitz, it would seem from even these paltry results, was clearly not Tarrasch's superior.
Reuben Fine wrote in "The World's Great Chess Game" and he seems correct :
"After the initial plunge, Tarrasch's career falls into three parts. In the first, 1885 - 1894. after some hesitation he wn almost everything in sight. After his victory at Manchester in 1890, he jusly complained because th Germans merely referred to him as the champion of Germany; the English, on the other hand, placed him second to Steinitz. It is a pity - a tragedy for Tarrasch - that he declined the invitation of the Havana Chess Club to meet Steinitz there in the winter of 1890-91. Had he accepted he might well have won the title which he coveted afterward so vainly and so bitterly. The great opportunity knocked once for Tarasch and he missed it. Very soon asker appeared, and Lasker was always Tarrach's superior."
Tschigorin and Tarrasch played a match in 1893. Each won 11 games and 4 were drawn.
Chessgames.com gives 13 more games from various tournament and of those, Tschigorin won 4; Tarrasch won 5 and 4 were drawn. Another case of neither being superior.
Batgirl? I said I know about all of them and you say you're not so sure I do? I'm not the one posting false information! Reb is the one saying that Steinitz was far more successful than Chigorin and Tarrasch.
I was arguing that Tarrasch's instructional books were better than writings by Steinitz and that Chigorin's ideas were correct where Steinitz and Tarrasch were false. Steinitz argued a lot and he wasn't always right. He won all his matches, with the exception of Lasker, but that doesn't mean his ideas were better. Same with Tarrasch - Nimzo was right and Tarrasch was wrong.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#951
It is exaggerated to say that Nimzo was right and Tarrasch wrong. The addition of hypermodern themes was a valuable contribution to chess. But if Tarrasch was wrong to undervalue hypermodernism (as did others including Lasker), Nimzo was overly dogmatic about it. A modern master would reject any foolish generality that hypermodern strategies of central control are simply better than classical ones.
patzermike wrote:
It is exaggerated to say that Nimzo was right and Tarrasch wrong. The addition of hypermodern themes was a valuable contribution to chess. But if Tarrasch was wrong to undervalue hypermodernism (as did others including Lasker), Nimzo was overly dogmatic about it. A modern master would reject any foolish generality that hypermodern strategies of central control are simply better than classical ones.
On many points, this is not an exaggeration. Tarrasch was right about many things, but he was dead wrong on every point he ever contested with Nimzo; from a theoretical stand point.
All the ideas of the past have been full of fault.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#954
Do you have some examples? I'll admit I haven't deeply researched their legendary disputes. From what I have read , I gather that they both can be faulted for overdogmatism.
Justs99171 wrote:
patzermike wrote:
It is exaggerated to say that Nimzo was right and Tarrasch wrong. The addition of hypermodern themes was a valuable contribution to chess. But if Tarrasch was wrong to undervalue hypermodernism (as did others including Lasker), Nimzo was overly dogmatic about it. A modern master would reject any foolish generality that hypermodern strategies of central control are simply better than classical ones.
On many points, this is not an exaggeration. Tarrasch was right about many things, but he was dead wrong on every point he ever contested with Nimzo; from a theoretical stand point.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#955
And we in our turn will be ancients and some of our thinking will be found wrong.
Magikstone wrote:
All the ideas of the past have been full of fault.
patzermike wrote:
And we in our turn will be ancients and some of our thinking will be found wrong.
Magikstone wrote:
All the ideas of the past have been full of fault.
Chigorin had a lot of ideas in the opening that were good and Steinitz and Tarrasch insisted these moves were bad and "incorrect."
Paul Morphy said the Sicilian was bad, though, and Capablanca said the Sveshnikov was bad.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#957
Morphy might change his tune if he saw how Fischer and Kasparov played the Sicilian.
patzermike wrote:
Morphy might change his tune if he saw how Fischer and Kasparov played the Sicilian.
no kidding!
It's interesting he didn't try any gambits against the Sicilian
The open Sicilian is awesome enough!
It's very interesting that batgirl, a not so good chess player knows her chess history.