I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge. >>>
William Hyde
Pease excuse me for going a bit off topic, but since I see you
mentioning bridge, and since the card games group is kind of dead, I
wonder if you could tell me if it is possible to play bridge with
complete strangers?
I'm fascinated by the game, but the team-aspect
Specifically partnership-aspect. In bridge teams are of four.
of it makes it kind of
annoying since I like the fact that with chess, poker or other games,
you can just sit down and play, and there would be no need to form a
team where you know the other guy.
It depends on how seriously you and your partner take the game.
Generally when two people find themselves without partners at an
event and decide to play together, there is a short discussion as
to conventions and signals to be employed. Often some of these
will be forgotten in the heat of play, and you have to be mature
enough not to mind.
I don't mind playing with a random partner who knows less than I
do and plays even worse. I'm there to enjoy the game, not necessarily
to finish in first place. If I get a good partner, it's also fine.
But if my proposed partner is a serious bridge nut I may hesitate. Some such people take the game entirely too seriously, get really riled
if you forget anything, or even if you don't know a convention that
was not discussed. It's amusing to recall my first such experiences,
when I was at pains to explain that I was knew to bridge, and knew
virtually nothing beyond the basics, and then to be upbraided for
not recognizing some advanced gadget (an advance cuebid, for example).
I laughed, but some people find that sort of thing upsetting.
Others are wise and accommodating (and generally
get better results with weaker partners).
You will do better in bridge if you are always respectful of your
partner, no matter what idiotic action partner has made. Remember
that you yourself make the occasional idiotic play.
Your best bet is to find a regular partner, agree on some level of conventions, and play mostly with that person. Once you know more
you'll be better able to accommodate to new partners.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge. >>>
William Hyde
Pease excuse me for going a bit off topic, but since I see you
mentioning bridge, and since the card games group is kind of dead, I
wonder if you could tell me if it is possible to play bridge with
complete strangers?
I'm fascinated by the game, but the team-aspect
Specifically partnership-aspect. In bridge teams are of four.
of it makes it kind of
annoying since I like the fact that with chess, poker or other games,
you can just sit down and play, and there would be no need to form a
team where you know the other guy.
Others are wise and accommodating (and generally
get better results with weaker partners).
You will do better in bridge if you are always respectful of your
partner, no matter what idiotic action partner has made. Remember
that you yourself make the occasional idiotic play.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:31:26 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge. >>>>
William Hyde
Pease excuse me for going a bit off topic, but since I see you
mentioning bridge, and since the card games group is kind of dead, I
wonder if you could tell me if it is possible to play bridge with
complete strangers?
I'm fascinated by the game, but the team-aspect
Specifically partnership-aspect. In bridge teams are of four.
Teams of 4 are common in competitive bridge play where the same hand
is played on two different tables with 1/2 of one team playing N-S,
the other playing E-W and the scores of both tables in each round are
summed. There are various scoring methods with raw score on each, raw
score team of 4, Intenational Match point scoring where a raw score is converted to IMP score designed to moderate the effect of big swings
such as when one side gets a slam, the other stops in game.
Then there's pure duplicate where a pair is a team and many others.
Finally let me share with you a hand I showed Dr Nathan Divinsky who
was both my vector calculus professor at the University of BC as well
as being long time Secretary of the Chess Federation of Canada (my
current job) and a well regarded bridge player.
I asked him "what is the worst hand in bridge?" He said he didn't know
and asked me to show him. I wrote on the napkin:
S: AKQJ
H: AKQJ
D: AKQJ
C: AK
After looking at it and not getting it he asked me how that could
possibly be the worst hand. I said "Dr Divinsky count the cards!" A
moment later he had a huge grin on his face and called me a nasty name
I had the honor of representing the Chess Federation of Canada at his
funeral in 2012 telling the family "I am one of the ten thousand" (the eulogist had mentioned his 10000+ students at UBC) "and in addition I
am the secretary of the Chess Federation of Canada" then turned to
each of the family and said "on behalf of the Chess Federation thank
you for giving him to us for awhile"
[After his death his widow invited me and several other chess players
to their house and was each gifted several of his books. One of mine I
got that day was a first edition of Fine's Basic Chess Endings - I
already had a copy of the much enlarged third edition but the first
edition was quite special]
of it makes it kind of
annoying since I like the fact that with chess, poker or other games,
you can just sit down and play, and there would be no need to form a
team where you know the other guy.
For tournament play that's true though for casual play if you're
willing to play "pick up" you can easily play though obviously you
have to stick to the same bidding conventions everyone knows
Others are wise and accommodating (and generally
get better results with weaker partners).
Victor Mollo covered that point in detail in his books featuring The
Hideous Hog who was a master level player who was totally ungifted
when playing with weaker partners and simply could not adjust his play
to them some of which led to magnificent disasters. Any of these books
is tremendously entertaining though I can't imagine it would improve
your bridge much!
You will do better in bridge if you are always respectful of your
partner, no matter what idiotic action partner has made. Remember
that you yourself make the occasional idiotic play.
Mollo did finish all these books with a chapter on how not to be the
"Hideous Hog" and actually play good bridge with any partner (which
may not be your best with your regular partner but nonetheless
satisfying)
You will do better in bridge if you are always respectful of your
partner, no matter what idiotic action partner has made. Remember
that you yourself make the occasional idiotic play.
Mollo did finish all these books with a chapter on how not to be the
"Hideous Hog"
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 14:46:54 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
That's true of most any partnership game where you intend to play moreYou will do better in bridge if you are always respectful of your
partner, no matter what idiotic action partner has made. Remember
that you yourself make the occasional idiotic play.
Mollo did finish all these books with a chapter on how not to be the
"Hideous Hog"
than one round of play. (Or 'hand' if you prefer)
I'm NOT a good bridge player - the kind of memory you have to have to
be a good Bridge player is entirely different from what you need to
excel at Chess.
D wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and bridge. >>>
William Hyde
Pease excuse me for going a bit off topic, but since I see you
mentioning bridge, and since the card games group is kind of dead, I
wonder if you could tell me if it is possible to play bridge with
complete strangers?
I'm fascinated by the game, but the team-aspect of it makes it kind of
annoying since I like the fact that with chess, poker or other games,
you can just sit down and play, and there would be no need to form a
team where you know the other guy.
Best regards, Daniel
I've only played Bridge once. On the other hand, there is Spades which I am skilled at. I played pickup games in jail and it was successful. My technique of losing hands intentionally kept off the bags. You'll probably make enemies you wouldn't otherwise.
D wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 14:46:54 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
That's true of most any partnership game where you intend to play moreYou will do better in bridge if you are always respectful of your
partner, no matter what idiotic action partner has made. Remember >>>>>> that you yourself make the occasional idiotic play.
Mollo did finish all these books with a chapter on how not to be the >>>>> "Hideous Hog"
than one round of play. (Or 'hand' if you prefer)
I'm NOT a good bridge player - the kind of memory you have to have to
be a good Bridge player is entirely different from what you need to
excel at Chess.
What's the difference? I remember seeing a documentary a year ago about
Judith Polgar and that the memory of chess players seems to be the same
memory that is engaged when memorizing faces. But in chess players it's
chess positions instead of faces.
What type of memory is valuable in bridge?
It's easier to have a unique style in chess than it is in Bridge. In my first Bridge game my great uncle kept yelling at me, "Conform! Conform!"
I make moves in Chess that I _never_ see anyone else make.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Mandrake wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and
bridge.
[OT excuse snipped]
I wonder if you could tell me if it is possible to play bridge with
complete strangers?
I'm fascinated by the game, but the team-aspect of it makes it kind of
annoying since I like the fact that with chess, poker or other games,
you can just sit down and play, and there would be no need to form a
team where you know the other guy.
I've only played Bridge once. On the other hand, there is Spades [...]
So do you prefer spades over bridge? If so, what about spades makes it
more fun for you?
On 26.06.2024 11:14, D wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Mandrake wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I can drop by on the appropriate day and spectate both chess and
bridge.
[OT excuse snipped]
I wonder if you could tell me if it is possible to play bridge with
complete strangers?
I'm fascinated by the game, but the team-aspect of it makes it kind of >>>> annoying since I like the fact that with chess, poker or other games,
you can just sit down and play, and there would be no need to form a
team where you know the other guy.
I've only played Bridge once. On the other hand, there is Spades [...]
So do you prefer spades over bridge? If so, what about spades makes it
more fun for you?
(First I must say that I started learning bridge about four decades
ago and never played a game ever due to lacking team players, so my
memories are at least a bit faint.)
But I think an answer is anyway quite obvious; there's a couple of characteristics of that game that might apply. One is the mentioned
familiar team combined with the (concerted and general) conventions.
The other is game complexity and experience; simpler games attract
more people, and you can more easily find an interested group. The
bidding is also not everyone's preference; a game property that I
know also from other card games, e.g. Skat (which is a three player
game, and the player who won the bidding plays alone). And one of
the players is only a spectator in Bridge and doomed to observe the
game of his partner (which might be considered annoying, since you
cannot take part to influence it).
Concerning Spades; I think there's a lot of variants thereof. It's
definitely a simpler game, and some variants have a luck component
(not all cards are dealt). The variants I played were fun at least.
But I prefer more demanding card games (where a playing experience
factor is typically essential; so you need not a familiar team but
a team familiar with the game).
Janis
So except Bridge, are there any other card games you can recommend that
does not require pre-existing teams or dummies?
On 26.06.2024 14:15, D wrote:
So except Bridge, are there any other card games you can recommend that
does not require pre-existing teams or dummies?
I think this can only be answered with a personal bias; there's so
many different types of card games, and some have just a culturally
or geographically local relevance.
Skat may be the one that I know to have spread worldwide but still
has globally no larger community. Schafkopf is another (but local)
card game that I like. Both of these have a strategical component
(like Bridge). And both require a minimum of experience to play.
I've been playing other sorts of card games in the past, like the
globally well known Romme or Canasta, but, while yet interesting,
these have a larger luck/gambling factor, so they differ from the
games mentioned previously. (I haven't played them since decades.)
Janis
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy
from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special
deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's easier to have a unique style in chess than it is in Bridge. In my >first Bridge game my great uncle kept yelling at me, "Conform! Conform!"
I make moves in Chess that I _never_ see anyone else make.
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from
southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy
from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special
deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat;
here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the >"Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and
of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Janis
Former world chess champion Lasker gave up chess for nine years, during
which he made his living at bridge, as contract bridge was then a new
game. It is possible to be a master of both games and I know several
people who have done just that.
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
Now Krupp was centered in Essen which is in the core of the Rhine
valley - not at all Bavaria or Pfalz
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from
southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy
from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special
deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat;
here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the "Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and
of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Janis
...What's the difference? I remember seeing a documentary a year ago about
Judith Polgar and that the memory of chess players seems to be the same
memory that is engaged when memorizing faces. But in chess players it's
chess positions instead of faces.
What type of memory is valuable in bridge?
I forgot to reply in March, but as this thread is reactivated I will now.
Bridge and Chess require several sorts of memory. One they have in common is long term memory of facts and strategies learned before play.
Former world chess champion Lasker gave up chess for nine years, during which he made his living at bridge, as contract bridge was then a new game. It is possible to be a master of both games and I know several people who have done just that.
D wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 26.06.2024 14:15, D wrote:
So except Bridge, are there any other card games you can recommend that >>>> does not require pre-existing teams or dummies?
I think this can only be answered with a personal bias; there's so
many different types of card games, and some have just a culturally
or geographically local relevance.
Skat may be the one that I know to have spread worldwide but still
has globally no larger community. Schafkopf is another (but local)
card game that I like. Both of these have a strategical component
(like Bridge). And both require a minimum of experience to play.
I've been playing other sorts of card games in the past, like the
globally well known Romme or Canasta, but, while yet interesting,
these have a larger luck/gambling factor, so they differ from the
games mentioned previously. (I haven't played them since decades.)
Janis
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from
southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy from >> southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special deck of >> cards. Not the regular french cards.
Oh no, that's Rook. Also Pinochle is better than Bridge.
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from
southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy
from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special
deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat;
here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the
"Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and
of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Janis
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
Now Krupp was centered in Essen which is in the core of the Rhine
valley - not at all Bavaria or Pfalz
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:25:59 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Former world chess champion Lasker gave up chess for nine years, duringMy earlier reference to the late Dr Nathan Divinsky (my predecessor as
which he made his living at bridge, as contract bridge was then a new
game. It is possible to be a master of both games and I know several
people who have done just that.
the Secretary of the Chess Federation of Canada) was one such.\
I'm out of practice but never seriously challenged for 2000. but have directed 100+ events ranging from the club level to national
championships. Probably about 1/4 of them were FIDE rated though I
largely retired from directing about 20 years ago (at which time my
workload at work became much heavier)
Also had no idea that Lasker was a good bridge player as well! I've read
his chess book, but it feels as if he kind of demands a lot from the
reader. So there's good stuff in there, but I am left with the feeling
from university, where the math professor says that... "the rest is easy
you can figure it out yourselves from here" and very few ever did. ;)
There was a time when I thought I was really getting Lasker, particularly the game collection in that book. But I went away for a few months and when I came back all was obscure again. Perhaps I was fooling myself the first time.
I find that one of the best ways to improve at chess is to always try to prove the "and wins" that occur in annotations. It's often not easy at all for the likes of us.
Last but not least, did you ever watch the bridge documentary Dirty Tricks?
I haven't.
William Hyde
Being a life long chess player, how do you feel that chess has enriched
your life?
Chess culture, the history of chess, chess personalities, and of course the games themselves.
Read Hans Ree's "The Reliable Past" or Arnold Denker's "The Bobby Fischer I knew and other stories" (You can skip the Fischer bit, that's only there to increase sales) for a survey of chess personalities.
The reason I'm asking is that I had a conversation with an IM once who gave >> up chess after playing for 20 years, because he realized how much of life
he'd been wasting trying to become GM, and when he realized how much work
he had to put in to og from IM to GM, while also having a child, he
realized it wasn't worth it any longer and just stopped over night.
Well, I never dedicated remotely that much time. I've probably played less than 300 tournament games, and a few dozen postal.
Quite a few serious players, even world class ones, quit at some point,
even some who were not crazy or afraid.
Oldrich Duras was one of the world's top ten, but he quit in 1915 and never played serious chess again, though he lived until 1957. Oscar Panno, a world championship candidate in 1956, quit serious chess for over a decade while concentrating on his career. Ossip Bernstein was known for spending decades away from the board, usually coming back when some catastrophe (the depression, WWII) had wiped out his business. Von der Lasa may well have been the best player in the world for quite a while in the mid 1800s, but played rarely, and never contested the world championship title - such as it then was.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from >>>> southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy >>>> from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special >>>> deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat;
here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the
"Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and
of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Janis
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat
players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
According to Edward Lasker a post-concert game of Skat was a must for Richard Strauss. When a regular player was delayed, Lasker was drafted in for a Skat game in Chicago. He and Strauss still had to wait a while and passed the time with a game of chess. Lasker said that Strauss wasn't bad, not as good as Elman or Godovsky, but I get the impression that he was a decent class player.
William Hyde
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
[...] So there's good stuff in there, but I am left with the feeling
from university, where the math professor says that... "the rest is easy >>> you can figure it out yourselves from here" and very few ever did. ;)
There was a time when I thought I was really getting Lasker,
particularly the game collection in that book. But I went away for a
few months and when I came back all was obscure again. Perhaps I was
fooling myself the first time.
[...]
Speaking of that, I had an experience that doesn't happen very often, recently.
I was walking downtown and I saw two people playing chess on one of
those big chess boards on the ground with meter high pieces and there
was quite an audience there.
I had one look, and instantly "saw" that one guy was lost, and could
almost just rabble 3-4 moves which would end the game.
Usually I need to think, go through some options, plan ahead etc. but
what was weird in this instance was that the solution just came to me
out of nowhere.
Has this ever happened to you?
On 04.07.2024 12:39, D wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
[...] So there's good stuff in there, but I am left with the feeling
from university, where the math professor says that... "the rest is easy >>>> you can figure it out yourselves from here" and very few ever did. ;)
There was a time when I thought I was really getting Lasker,
particularly the game collection in that book. But I went away for a
few months and when I came back all was obscure again. Perhaps I was
fooling myself the first time.
[...]
Speaking of that, I had an experience that doesn't happen very often,
recently.
I was walking downtown and I saw two people playing chess on one of
those big chess boards on the ground with meter high pieces and there
was quite an audience there.
I had one look, and instantly "saw" that one guy was lost, and could
almost just rabble 3-4 moves which would end the game.
Usually I need to think, go through some options, plan ahead etc. but
what was weird in this instance was that the solution just came to me
out of nowhere.
Has this ever happened to you?
Not in chess, but it happens.
I recall that I once (in the early 1980's) pondered about the
Four Color Theorem after having read an article about it that
mentioned that it's yet unsolved and there's only a computer
based (sort of) solution existing. Having recently read a book
about graph theory I wondered why there's not yet a solution;
I was under the impression that the combination of two already
existing mathematical propositions (one of it was Kuratowski's
theorem, as I still recall) and a little "glue" would already
solve the theorem - without any computer and straightforward!
Since I'm no mathematician I didn't document that and when I
tried some years later to reproduce my thoughts I wasn't able
to do so.
The reasons for such "genius" may not be clearly identifiable
ex post. It might be a bright moment - there's a lot of them
in the history of sciences - or maybe just an oversight (may
happen when scoring a chess situation) or a simplification or
error in proving a theorem (may happen in mathematics). - All
is possible.
Janis
Well, I never dedicated remotely that much time. I've probably played
less than 300 tournament games, and a few dozen postal.
(Or did you mean to say that the Krupp family was playing _Schafkopf_
outside Bavaria and Pfalz?)
Laziness has a lot to do with it. In North America chess for weaker
players almost always takes the form of weekend swisses, with two or
even three games per day. It's a test of endurance as much as chess
ability, and as a non-morning person it didn't work for me. So I soon >stopped playing in those.
I recall that I once (in the early 1980's) pondered about the
Four Color Theorem after having read an article about it that
mentioned that it's yet unsolved and there's only a computer
based (sort of) solution existing. Having recently read a book
about graph theory I wondered why there's not yet a solution;
I was under the impression that the combination of two already
existing mathematical propositions (one of it was Kuratowski's
theorem, as I still recall) and a little "glue" would already
solve the theorem - without any computer and straightforward!
Since I'm no mathematician I didn't document that and when I
tried some years later to reproduce my thoughts I wasn't able
to do so.
D wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Being a life long chess player, how do you feel that chess has enriched >>>> your life?
Chess culture, the history of chess, chess personalities, and of course
the games themselves.
Yes, that part of Chess I find very charming as well. There's something
very fascinating with the strong personalities and quirks of some chess
genuises.
Read Hans Ree's "The Reliable Past" or Arnold Denker's "The Bobby Fischer >>> I knew and other stories" (You can skip the Fischer bit, that's only there >>> to increase sales) for a survey of chess personalities.
Thank you, those will go into the "to buy" list.
The reason I'm asking is that I had a conversation with an IM once who >>>> gave up chess after playing for 20 years, because he realized how much of >>>> life he'd been wasting trying to become GM, and when he realized how much >>>> work he had to put in to og from IM to GM, while also having a child, he >>>> realized it wasn't worth it any longer and just stopped over night.
Well, I never dedicated remotely that much time. I've probably played
less than 300 tournament games, and a few dozen postal.
Ahh... so you have managed to resist the complete obsession? ;)
Laziness has a lot to do with it. In North America chess for weaker players almost always takes the form of weekend swisses, with two or even three games per day. It's a test of endurance as much as chess ability, and as a non-morning person it didn't work for me. So I soon stopped playing in those.
Quite a few serious players, even world class ones, quit at some point,
even some who were not crazy or afraid.
Oldrich Duras was one of the world's top ten, but he quit in 1915 and
never played serious chess again, though he lived until 1957. Oscar
Panno, a world championship candidate in 1956, quit serious chess for over >>> a decade while concentrating on his career. Ossip Bernstein was known for >>> spending decades away from the board, usually coming back when some
catastrophe (the depression, WWII) had wiped out his business. Von der >>> Lasa may well have been the best player in the world for quite a while in >>> the mid 1800s, but played rarely, and never contested the world
championship title - such as it then was.
William Hyde
It is very charming with chess at those times, where you can just go
away and come back as a world class player.
Is that even possible today?
Today it seems like things are so professionalized that if you step away
from the highest division, you lose too much compared with your
competitoes to easily come back.
But with computer aid it's easier today to get up to date than it ever was.
When Panno returned to chess his results were at first uncertain, but after a year or so he was winning strong international events again, showing himself to be one of the world's top players.
Had he been willing and able to devote his whole time to chess, he'd have gone even further, certainly to more Candidate's events, perhaps even to the final.
But I sympathize with his desire for three meals a day and a roof over his head.
I wonder if there will be come counter-movement to the current hard,
technical and computer analyzed chess? Will there be a resurgence of
romantic "crazy" chess when the audience has lost interest in the
hyper-prepared "perfect" chess?
I think it's here. Computers can aid in crazy looking games, too.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from >>>>>> southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy >>>>>> from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special >>>>>> deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat; >>>>> here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the >>>>> "Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and >>>>> of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant >>>>> played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the >>>>> USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead" >>>>> (and played with American cards).
Janis
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat >>>> players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
According to Edward Lasker a post-concert game of Skat was a must for
Richard Strauss. When a regular player was delayed, Lasker was drafted in >>> for a Skat game in Chicago. He and Strauss still had to wait a while and >>> passed the time with a game of chess. Lasker said that Strauss wasn't
bad, not as good as Elman or Godovsky, but I get the impression that he
was a decent class player.
William Hyde
Would that have been more common at that time, when the nr of games
available were a lot less?
Possibly. But at other points Lasker cites brilliant people who loved to play chess, but were unspeakably bad.
The late 1920s saw backgammon become a game of more skill with the introduction of the cube, and auction bridge was improved to become contract bridge.
Go also became more popular in the west. Edward Lasker's life course was swayed by a desire to get transferred to his firm's Tokyo office so that he could study go. He had made it as far as London before WWI intervened.
Much of what I am saying here comes from Lasker's book "Chess Secrets I learned from the Masters". Terrible title, fun book.
William Hyde
I have a pile of books, but it seems certain you have more on chess than
I do. I've never counted, but have at most a hundred and fifty titles. >They'll go to Toronto used book stores. I hope the new readers
appreciate my almost illegible annotations (all made in pencil,
fortunately).
For history I prefer GM, which has a larger scope, for biography the >Churchill, but for me they're both equally readable, though that may be
a minority opinion. If you don't want a hundred pages on just how
England could afford those wars, avoid the Trevelyan.
Both do the battles very well.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Mandrake wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 26.06.2024 14:15, D wrote:
So except Bridge, are there any other card games you can recommend
that
does not require pre-existing teams or dummies?
I think this can only be answered with a personal bias; there's so
many different types of card games, and some have just a culturally
or geographically local relevance.
Skat may be the one that I know to have spread worldwide but still
has globally no larger community. Schafkopf is another (but local)
card game that I like. Both of these have a strategical component
(like Bridge). And both require a minimum of experience to play.
I've been playing other sorts of card games in the past, like the
globally well known Romme or Canasta, but, while yet interesting,
these have a larger luck/gambling factor, so they differ from the
games mentioned previously. (I haven't played them since decades.)
Janis
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you
from southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from
a guy from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a
special deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
Oh no, that's Rook. Also Pinochle is better than Bridge.
What makes Pinochle better than bridge?
D wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Mandrake wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 26.06.2024 14:15, D wrote:
So except Bridge, are there any other card games you can recommend that >>>>>> does not require pre-existing teams or dummies?
I think this can only be answered with a personal bias; there's so
many different types of card games, and some have just a culturally
or geographically local relevance.
Skat may be the one that I know to have spread worldwide but still
has globally no larger community. Schafkopf is another (but local)
card game that I like. Both of these have a strategical component
(like Bridge). And both require a minimum of experience to play.
I've been playing other sorts of card games in the past, like the
globally well known Romme or Canasta, but, while yet interesting,
these have a larger luck/gambling factor, so they differ from the
games mentioned previously. (I haven't played them since decades.)
Janis
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from >>>> southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy >>>> from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special >>>> deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
Oh no, that's Rook. Also Pinochle is better than Bridge.
What makes Pinochle better than bridge?
To me, Pinochle is what has driven playing card sales. Right on the pack it often says "Pinochle Deck." Pinochle has what is called 'meld.' Score is gained by making melds and taking tricks.
My basic argument is that Pinochle is long on strategy even after you understand the rules. Bridge is a community game, whereas Pinochle is competitive. I'm not fond of the signalling setup in bridge - it is beneath me. It's a hijacking of a bidding system. And finally, I got yelled at playing Bridge but not while playing Pinochle.
On 02.07.2024 10:37, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat
players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
Now Krupp was centered in Essen which is in the core of the Rhine
valley - not at all Bavaria or Pfalz
That's not surprising; Skat is a game played across _all_ of Germany (including the Pfalz and all other states), while Schafkopf is quite "localized" to Bavarian area (with the noted exceptions of the Pfalz,
etc.).
(Or did you mean to say that the Krupp family was playing _Schafkopf_
outside Bavaria and Pfalz?)
BTW, some time around the late 1960's early 1970's there was even a
TV show where you could watch Skat players playing that game. Faintly
I seem to recall that there was also something similar with Bridge.
Not any more today.
Janis
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from >>>> southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy >>>> from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special >>>> deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat;
here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the
"Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and
of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Janis
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat
players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
Now Krupp was centered in Essen which is in the core of the Rhine
valley - not at all Bavaria or Pfalz
Isn't there some legend that one or more of the traditional wealthy
american families were very dedicated bridge players? On the other hand,
it could just be due to fashion, sinec bridge was a lot more popular at
that time.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Being a life long chess player, how do you feel that chess has
enriched your life?
Chess culture, the history of chess, chess personalities, and of
course the games themselves.
Yes, that part of Chess I find very charming as well. There's something
very fascinating with the strong personalities and quirks of some chess
genuises.
Read Hans Ree's "The Reliable Past" or Arnold Denker's "The Bobby
Fischer I knew and other stories" (You can skip the Fischer bit,
that's only there to increase sales) for a survey of chess
personalities.
Thank you, those will go into the "to buy" list.
The reason I'm asking is that I had a conversation with an IM once
who gave up chess after playing for 20 years, because he realized
how much of life he'd been wasting trying to become GM, and when he
realized how much work he had to put in to og from IM to GM, while
also having a child, he realized it wasn't worth it any longer and
just stopped over night.
Well, I never dedicated remotely that much time. I've probably
played less than 300 tournament games, and a few dozen postal.
Ahh... so you have managed to resist the complete obsession? ;)
Laziness has a lot to do with it. In North America chess for weaker
players almost always takes the form of weekend swisses, with two or
even three games per day. It's a test of endurance as much as chess
ability, and as a non-morning person it didn't work for me. So I soon
stopped playing in those.
I feel your pain. I'm a non-morning person too! I have been known to pay
more for travel in order to travel in the afternoon instead of having to
wake up at 05:00 in the morning. ;)
Quite a few serious players, even world class ones, quit at some point, >>>> even some who were not crazy or afraid.
Oldrich Duras was one of the world's top ten, but he quit in 1915
and never played serious chess again, though he lived until 1957.
Oscar Panno, a world championship candidate in 1956, quit serious
chess for over a decade while concentrating on his career. Ossip
Bernstein was known for spending decades away from the board,
usually coming back when some catastrophe (the depression, WWII) had
wiped out his business. Von der Lasa may well have been the best
player in the world for quite a while in the mid 1800s, but played
rarely, and never contested the world championship title - such as
it then was.
William Hyde
It is very charming with chess at those times, where you can just go
away and come back as a world class player.
Is that even possible today?
Today it seems like things are so professionalized that if you step away >>> from the highest division, you lose too much compared with your
competitoes to easily come back.
But with computer aid it's easier today to get up to date than it ever
was.
That's a good point!
When Panno returned to chess his results were at first uncertain, but
after a year or so he was winning strong international events again,
showing himself to be one of the world's top players.
Had he been willing and able to devote his whole time to chess, he'd
have gone even further, certainly to more Candidate's events, perhaps
even to the final.
But I sympathize with his desire for three meals a day and a roof over
his head.
I wonder if there will be come counter-movement to the current hard,
technical and computer analyzed chess? Will there be a resurgence of
romantic "crazy" chess when the audience has lost interest in the
hyper-prepared "perfect" chess?
I think it's here. Computers can aid in crazy looking games, too.
It's an interesting strategy, playing against what your opponent most
likely did _not_ prepare for to confuse him!
William Hyde
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Also had no idea that Lasker was a good bridge player as well! I've read >>> his chess book, but it feels as if he kind of demands a lot from the
reader. So there's good stuff in there, but I am left with the feeling
from university, where the math professor says that... "the rest is easy >>> you can figure it out yourselves from here" and very few ever did. ;)
There was a time when I thought I was really getting Lasker,
particularly the game collection in that book. But I went away for a
few months and when I came back all was obscure again. Perhaps I was
fooling myself the first time.
That's good advice. From time to time I read the financial times, and
they do have a chess puzzle! Trying to solve it offline, in your easy
chair or outside in summer on your porch, has a certain charm.
Compare that with just entering it on lichess and exploring with the
help of the computer.
D wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Being a life long chess player, how do you feel that chess has enriched >>>>>> your life?
Chess culture, the history of chess, chess personalities, and of course >>>>> the games themselves.
Yes, that part of Chess I find very charming as well. There's something >>>> very fascinating with the strong personalities and quirks of some chess >>>> genuises.
Read Hans Ree's "The Reliable Past" or Arnold Denker's "The Bobby
Fischer I knew and other stories" (You can skip the Fischer bit, that's >>>>> only there to increase sales) for a survey of chess personalities.
Thank you, those will go into the "to buy" list.
The reason I'm asking is that I had a conversation with an IM once who >>>>>> gave up chess after playing for 20 years, because he realized how much >>>>>> of life he'd been wasting trying to become GM, and when he realized how >>>>>> much work he had to put in to og from IM to GM, while also having a >>>>>> child, he realized it wasn't worth it any longer and just stopped over >>>>>> night.
Well, I never dedicated remotely that much time. I've probably played >>>>> less than 300 tournament games, and a few dozen postal.
Ahh... so you have managed to resist the complete obsession? ;)
Laziness has a lot to do with it. In North America chess for weaker
players almost always takes the form of weekend swisses, with two or even >>> three games per day. It's a test of endurance as much as chess ability, >>> and as a non-morning person it didn't work for me. So I soon stopped
playing in those.
I feel your pain. I'm a non-morning person too! I have been known to pay
more for travel in order to travel in the afternoon instead of having to
wake up at 05:00 in the morning. ;)
Quite a few serious players, even world class ones, quit at some point, >>>>> even some who were not crazy or afraid.
Oldrich Duras was one of the world's top ten, but he quit in 1915 and >>>>> never played serious chess again, though he lived until 1957. Oscar >>>>> Panno, a world championship candidate in 1956, quit serious chess for >>>>> over a decade while concentrating on his career. Ossip Bernstein was >>>>> known for spending decades away from the board, usually coming back when >>>>> some catastrophe (the depression, WWII) had wiped out his business. Von >>>>> der Lasa may well have been the best player in the world for quite a >>>>> while in the mid 1800s, but played rarely, and never contested the world >>>>> championship title - such as it then was.
William Hyde
It is very charming with chess at those times, where you can just go
away and come back as a world class player.
Is that even possible today?
Today it seems like things are so professionalized that if you step away >>>> from the highest division, you lose too much compared with your
competitoes to easily come back.
But with computer aid it's easier today to get up to date than it ever
was.
That's a good point!
When Panno returned to chess his results were at first uncertain, but
after a year or so he was winning strong international events again,
showing himself to be one of the world's top players.
Had he been willing and able to devote his whole time to chess, he'd have >>> gone even further, certainly to more Candidate's events, perhaps even to >>> the final.
But I sympathize with his desire for three meals a day and a roof over his >>> head.
I wonder if there will be come counter-movement to the current hard,
technical and computer analyzed chess? Will there be a resurgence of
romantic "crazy" chess when the audience has lost interest in the
hyper-prepared "perfect" chess?
I think it's here. Computers can aid in crazy looking games, too.
It's an interesting strategy, playing against what your opponent most
likely did _not_ prepare for to confuse him!
William Hyde
It's a concern playing online that the opponent may be using a computer to bolster his ability. I typically smudge my results upward by 0.5 % in order to reflect this. Then I put the worry out off me and play.
D wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:26:06 +0200, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26.06.2024 23:47, D wrote:
Ahh, well, at some point anything we say is subjective. ;) Are you from >>>>> southern germany? The only time I heard about Schafkopf was from a guy >>>>> from southern germany. I think, if memory serves, that it was a special >>>>> deck of cards. Not the regular french cards.
It's indeed mainly played in Bavaria (and I think also in Austria).
And yes, typically there's other cards used as you're using for Skat;
here it's called "Deutsches Blatt" ("German cards") as opposed to the
"Französisches Blatt" (French cards). But there are a lot variants and >>>> of course completely other card types than these two as well.
Interestingly I found a note in the Wikipedia that there's a variant
played in another part of Germany (Pfalz) that is also played in the
USA (Minnesota and Wisconsin), and it's literally named "Sheepshead"
(and played with American cards).
Janis
Interesting - I read somewhere that when the Krupp family was still
running their company the male members of the clan were all great Skat
players - and they played incessantly particularly when travelling
between towns by train.
Now Krupp was centered in Essen which is in the core of the Rhine
valley - not at all Bavaria or Pfalz
Isn't there some legend that one or more of the traditional wealthy
american families were very dedicated bridge players? On the other hand, it >> could just be due to fashion, sinec bridge was a lot more popular at that
time.
i'M NOT SURE, BUT MY idea that Pinochle is better than Bridge may not be shared by the majority of card players. My grandpa was a fanatic. Every time my father visited he would bellow to my father to play Pinochle. Unfortunately I don't know the backstory just that they must have clashed at the table. My father always refuses. As for me, I don't even have the meld memorized yet.
Also had no idea that Lasker was a good bridge player as well! I've read >>>> his chess book, but it feels as if he kind of demands a lot from the
reader. So there's good stuff in there, but I am left with the feeling >>>> from university, where the math professor says that... "the rest is easy >>>> you can figure it out yourselves from here" and very few ever did. ;)
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:23:07 -0500, Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Also had no idea that Lasker was a good bridge player as well! I've read >>>>> his chess book, but it feels as if he kind of demands a lot from the >>>>> reader. So there's good stuff in there, but I am left with the feeling >>>>> from university, where the math professor says that... "the rest is easy >>>>> you can figure it out yourselves from here" and very few ever did. ;)
I had a math professor once (who happened to be an international
arbiter but that's irrelevant to my tale) who on the particular day
did a vector calculus proof requiring 4 blackboards where a complex
set of facts boiled down to a very simple and elegant result and said
'you can figure out the rest for yourself' just as the bell was
going...
(I was one of the last to leave that day mostly because it was obvious
that this was going to be something key to future classes and I wanted
to ensure I got it down right)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 24:59:23 |
| Calls: | 9,793 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,096 |