D wrote:
Dear rgcm:ers,
After battling stockfish level 6 four times today, I finally reached a
state of semi-peace and serenity in the form of a draw! =D
Here's the link for those of you who like passive games. ;)
https://lichess.org/pjPG1tTA
(1) That's not a passive game.
(2)Take advantage of the free analysis:
https://lichess.org/pjPG1tTA#30
(3) When Stockfish blunders a piece, take it. If it's a deep sac you are probably losing anyway. But at level six it generally means you just won a piece.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
Dear rgcm:ers,
After battling stockfish level 6 four times today, I finally reached a >>>> state of semi-peace and serenity in the form of a draw! =D
Here's the link for those of you who like passive games. ;)
https://lichess.org/pjPG1tTA
(1) That's not a passive game.
Hah, maybe I'm more active than I give myself credit for? ;)
Well, with Ne5, f4 and g4 you are certainly launching an attack. The machine at level 15 is not thrilled by it, but the machine at level six soon errs, giving you a winning advantage.
William Hyde
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Well, with Ne5, f4 and g4 you are certainly launching an
attack. The machine at level 15 is not thrilled by it, but
the machine at level six soon errs, giving you a winning
advantage.
Jesus! Where do you find this hidden level 15? I use
lichess.org and have only found up to level 8.
D wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Well, with Ne5, f4 and g4 you are certainly launching an
attack. The machine at level 15 is not thrilled by it, but
the machine at level six soon errs, giving you a winning
advantage.
Jesus! Where do you find this hidden level 15? I use
lichess.org and have only found up to level 8.
I think somebody already pointed out that Lichess use a fork of
Stockfish, that is what you are using when you play the
computer. It's not latest version of the full engine. Hence only
the eight levels.
If you are using Lichess to analyse games you get a choice of
what [proper] Stockfish version to use, via the settings on that
section. I don't know what the default version shown is without
looking it up but 17 is the current version of Stockfish, and it
is available on Lichess to use as well as being available to
download yourself from the Stockfish website to your PC , mobile
phone or tablet.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
Jesus! Where do you find this hidden level 15? I use
lichess.org and have only found up to level 8.
I think somebody already pointed out that Lichess use a fork
of Stockfish, that is what you are using when you play the
computer. It's not latest version of the full engine. Hence
only the eight levels.
If you are using Lichess to analyse games you get a choice of
what [proper] Stockfish version to use, via the settings on
that section. I don't know what the default version shown is
without looking it up but 17 is the current version of
Stockfish, and it is available on Lichess to use as well as
being available to download yourself from the Stockfish
website to your PC , mobile phone or tablet.
I would like to have a map between online stockfish and
downloadable stockfish. I do not think levels 1-8 on online
stockfish correspond to levels 1-8 in the downloadable version.
D wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
Jesus! Where do you find this hidden level 15? I use
lichess.org and have only found up to level 8.
I think somebody already pointed out that Lichess use a fork
of Stockfish, that is what you are using when you play the
computer. It's not latest version of the full engine. Hence
only the eight levels.
If you are using Lichess to analyse games you get a choice of
what [proper] Stockfish version to use, via the settings on
that section. I don't know what the default version shown is
without looking it up but 17 is the current version of
Stockfish, and it is available on Lichess to use as well as
being available to download yourself from the Stockfish
website to your PC , mobile phone or tablet.
I would like to have a map between online stockfish and
downloadable stockfish. I do not think levels 1-8 on online
stockfish correspond to levels 1-8 in the downloadable version.
They won't be the same if you are using Lichess, as they are
using a variant of Stockfish (fairy-stockfish) for their play
with computer options. For analysis of games you can select the
engine to use, of which the full Stockfish 17 NNUE is selectable
from the engine menu. Stockfish 17 is Stockfish 17 wherever you
use it.
You'd have the Google the differences between Stockfish and the
variant as I am not 'that' much of a computer nerd! (Or check
out the Stockfish Discord channel if you are on Discord.) But I
would imagine at 'our' level it's not going to make a lot of
difference in the long run.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
I would like to have a map between online stockfish and
downloadable stockfish. I do not think levels 1-8 on online
stockfish correspond to levels 1-8 in the downloadable
version.
You'd have the Google the differences between Stockfish and
the variant as I am not 'that' much of a computer nerd! (Or
check out the Stockfish Discord channel if you are on
Discord.) But I would imagine at 'our' level it's not going
to make a lot of difference in the long run.
I have googled, and have found comparisons of fairy-stockfish
to FIDE rating levels, but I don't know if I believe them. To
me, it seems like they vastly over estimate stockfish.
D wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:
I would like to have a map between online stockfish and
downloadable stockfish. I do not think levels 1-8 on online
stockfish correspond to levels 1-8 in the downloadable
version.
You'd have the Google the differences between Stockfish and
the variant as I am not 'that' much of a computer nerd! (Or
check out the Stockfish Discord channel if you are on
Discord.) But I would imagine at 'our' level it's not going
to make a lot of difference in the long run.
I have googled, and have found comparisons of fairy-stockfish
to FIDE rating levels, but I don't know if I believe them. To
me, it seems like they vastly over estimate stockfish.
I suppose any engine-FIDE rating comparison is probably only
subjective at the end of the day. I wouldn't expect them to be
100% accurate. But I wouldn't think they would be too far off
the mark either, as the people who tend to do those sort of
things would generally know what's what and be using software to
make those comparisons.
If you use Lichess maybe ask a question in the forum there and
see what people say in the replies...or the chess.com forums if
you prefer that site. Some people cleverer than me will surely
be able to help you out.
This is what the forum says (1 year ago):
1 800
2 1100
3 1400
4 1700
5 2000
6 2300
7 2700
8 3000
Since I beat level 5 40%-50% or the time, and since I have won once
against level 6, I consider their ELO ratings way too high.
I've played against an IM with level 2428 and that I should be around 1800-1900 hundred I do not believe for a second.
On the other hand, I think he toyed with level 6, and sadly I don't
remember if he ever played 7 or 8 live when he was giving lessons.
Stockfish FAQ:
https://github-wiki-see.page/m/official-stockfish/Stockfish/wiki/Stockfish-FAQ
Conclusion:
"Rating Stockfish on a human scale (e.g. FIDE Elo) has become an almost impossible task..."
In other words, just play and have fun as there's no point in trying to compare engine levels to FIDE ratings.
This is what the forum says (1 year ago):
1 800
2 1100
3 1400
4 1700
5 2000
I find this very hard to believe. I beat five almost all the time and I am very much weaker nowadays. I'd be surprised to find that I am as much as 2100 at g/10. Realistically, I might be 1900.
Consider the following, where I play some dubious moves for an attack:
https://lichess.org/d5y4PavU#32
Can white really be 2000?
6 2300
A tougher proposition. But again I win far too often.
7 2700
Never managed to beat this, but again I've scored a few draws out of a small number of games. Out of dozens of rapid games against mere 2500 players in the real world I scored only slightly better.
William Hyde
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:26:44 +0000, D wrote:
This is what the forum says (1 year ago):
1 800
2 1100
3 1400
4 1700
5 2000
6 2300
7 2700
8 3000
Since I beat level 5 40%-50% or the time, and since I have won once
against level 6, I consider their ELO ratings way too high.
I've played against an IM with level 2428 and that I should be around
1800-1900 hundred I do not believe for a second.
On the other hand, I think he toyed with level 6, and sadly I don't
remember if he ever played 7 or 8 live when he was giving lessons.
You might find this video interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdFLEfRr3Qk
7? And why not embark upon a training program, to see how long time it
would
take you to regularly beat 7? =)
I admit I'm trying to improve my chess game, but I'm also trying to improve my bridge, and editing a book. And I'm lazy.
So playing slow chess isn't something I am ever likely to do again.
If I ever play and beat seven, doubtless I'll post it here.
Visited old haunts yesterday, but the chess players have flown south for the winter.
William Hyde
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I admit I'm trying to improve my chess game, but I'm also
trying to improve my bridge, and editing a book. And I'm
lazy.
Ah bridge! I often thought if I should get into that, but the
fact that it would require 3 other people, and a regular
partner makes it too much trouble.
That's what I like with chess, either I can play the
computer, or it requires just one more person, and
that's about what I can manage. ;)
But I do have to admit that I am intrigued by it. I recommend the
documentary
Dirty tricks if you haven't seen it. It is about a bridge cheating
scandals.
Very entertaining!
Are you editing a chess book, perhaps?
I am totally unqualified in that area.
It's a technical work.
Oh, they are seasonal? Maybe I should look for someone to play when I go to >> spain during spring and/or autumn?
There is some outdoor play here. but it's too cold now. The old chess club is long gone, alas.
Emanuel says that those types of people will not reach the highest levels, >> but
instead champions intuition (or judgment as he calls it), and that is how
you
become good.
Interesting contrast!
Emanuel accepted Steinitz' principles, but knew that the rules derived therefrom had exceptions. Not in as systematic way as the hypermoderns found exceptions, but then he preceded them by a generation. Nimzowitsch in his works often mentioned Lasker's freedom from convention.
Edward's distinguishing feature was his ability to find very unexpected tactics with which he caused problems for even the greatest players from time to time, Lasker senior, Capablanca, Marshall and so on. In a sense he was Steinitizan in this: you'll note in his books that he often insists that he must have a good continuation, because he has obeyed the rules while his opponent has not. Alas, finding those shots often got him into serious time trouble.
Edward was unfortunate enough to be very successful in the real world. Otherwise he might have attained the status of impoverished grandmaster.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I admit I'm trying to improve my chess game, but I'm also
trying to improve my bridge, and editing a book. And I'm
lazy.
Ah bridge! I often thought if I should get into that, but the
fact that it would require 3 other people, and a regular
partner makes it too much trouble.
My Nan used to play Bridge (double)... but I haven't a clue how
to play it. She used to read Omar Shariff's Bridge newspaper
column religiously every day. When I hear about the game I think
of her.
That's what I like with chess, either I can play the
computer, or it requires just one more person, and
that's about what I can manage. ;)
I suppose ther's no market for online contract bridge?
LiBridge?! :-)
Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:There are a number of online bridge servers, some free.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I admit I'm trying to improve my chess game, but I'm also
trying to improve my bridge, and editing a book. And I'm
lazy.
Ah bridge! I often thought if I should get into that, but the
fact that it would require 3 other people, and a regular
partner makes it too much trouble.
My Nan used to play Bridge (double)... but I haven't a clue how
to play it. She used to read Omar Shariff's Bridge newspaper
column religiously every day. When I hear about the game I think
of her.
That's what I like with chess, either I can play the
computer, or it requires just one more person, and
that's about what I can manage. ;)
I suppose ther's no market for online contract bridge?
LiBridge?! :-)
I play on bridgebase.com, but only to train myself at card and hand counting.
There are, I am told, better servers, but they use conventions I do not know.
William Hyde
Interesting! Do you need to know special conventions or rules in order to
play at certain servers?
You need to be conversant with the conventions your partner and your opponents use. And they with yours, if you want to have any chance of doing more than terribly. There's no legal requirement, though whatever system you are using or abusing must be disclosed to the opponents, of course.
Here in North America most of us grow up using a system called Standard American, vastly and perhaps justly derided in Europe. There are of course
many other systems used by stronger players, but the bulk of us club players use SA. On European servers it can be difficult to find players who know SA, or are willing to use it.
I know something of the Precision system, used by a number of good players at my club, but while that is respected in Europe, few seem to play it.
I confess I haven't looked all that hard. Bridge is well down on my priority list, now that I don't play in tournaments.
William Hyde
Computers, physics or chemistry?
Climate!
(I wanted to joke "Porn!" but nowadays too many people would believe me).
Yes! This is the truth. Playing according to principle I think is a mighty >> way to play as long as you are not a professional! But I do think that at a >> high level, everyone knows the principles, you do need that "leap of the
imagination" or knowing when to break the rules, in order to be successful.
You can look at it two ways, as in finding exceptions to the rules, or as in creating more general rules, which was Nimzowitsch's approach.
In physics, the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit could have been simply categorized as an exception to Newton's laws (not that anybody would have been happy with that), but instead it pointed the way to refined laws.
What IM John Watson calls "Rule independence" has become a larger feature of play over the past century.
Emanuel Lasker I read, would from time to time play a bad move, only to
confuse his opponents.
Much that is said about Lasker is at best inaccurate, at worst mythologizing.
Lasker did take severe risks to unbalance positions.
There were two reasons for this: he respected his opponents' ability to hold the draw in simple positions, and his own if things turned out poorly. The margin of draw figured largely in his thinking.
And in poor positions, especially against a superb technician like Tarrasch or Rubenstein, he knew that his only chance lay in complications. Even dubious ones.
A principal myth concerns his choice of the Ruy Lopez exchange variation in his crucial gave vs Capablanca at St Petersburg 1914. Much time has been wasted discussing this "psychological" choice, but this discussion is not borne out by an examination of the game. Commentators also forget that in his career Lasker often used this variation in critical games, as in the first game of the Tarrasch match. And generally with great success.
Haha, true! Many GM:s I've read about show an enormous passion for the game, >> to the exclusion of everything else! In my case, life gets in the way, and >> has precedence, so sometimes there's no chess for a long time, before I pick >> it up again.
If you read the Denker&Parr book you'll come across a fellow named George Treysmann. I am barely able to resist spoiling that story, but by an effort of willpower which will tire me for days ... I have succeeded.
I guess the compensation is that I am probably better off materially than
some of those old GM:s.
The vast majority, I would think. Virtually all of those who didn't have a profession outside chess. Lasker and Steinitz both died poor, Alekhine was dashing off articles to pay for his cigarettes and booze in his last weeks.
Even then ... Bernstein made and lost three fortunes (losing them in the Russian revolution, depression, and WWII). I think he finished up comfortably off though.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
Interesting! Do you need to know special conventions or rules in order to >>>> play at certain servers?
You need to be conversant with the conventions your partner and your
opponents use. And they with yours, if you want to have any chance of
doing more than terribly. There's no legal requirement, though whatever >>> system you are using or abusing must be disclosed to the opponents, of
course.
Sigh... another one of those partner-complications that keep me from
exploring
bridge. Maybe I should just look into whist or spades instead? ;)
I did play a lot of poker in college, but the thing is that I only enjoy it >> live, with plenty of talking, taunting and heckling. Playing poker online
kills
all the fun for me. =(
Here in North America most of us grow up using a system called Standard
American, vastly and perhaps justly derided in Europe. There are of
course
What?! No Canadian?
I invented one myself, as a joke. I convinced a partner to play it with me in rubber bridge, and we did rather well, but probably because my partner was an extremely good player (master at chess, as well).
I called it "system" or "My System" after Nimzowitsch, and pronounced it German style.
It would not be allowed in a tournament, of course.
Standard American may be slightly less common here than in the US, but at the club level it is still the overwhelming choice.
The best player at our club for years played ACOL (a British system), the best players now play Precision or some variant thereof.
William Hyde
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/
;)
Maybe something to include in the book? =)
(1) Not my book, I'm only helping.
(2) Article is crap.
Fascinating! Haven't heard about that, but will look it up!
The book is by the above called something like "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy".
Yes, but deeply considered gambles. And only when necessary.
The real gambler was Janowski, on and off the board. Wasn't at all successful off the board. Not to be confused with Canadian GM Yanofsky, not a gambler at all.
I think you are seriously underestimating your chess knowledge! Yes, you
might not be an IM, but your knowledge of chess history and its players is >> profound!
I've read a lot of books, and knew a lot of older players. One of the members of my first club, Toronto Champion 1942, was one of Kerensky's supporters in 1917. But I'm just an amateur.
Edward Winter knows a lot about chess. Richard Forster, Swiss IM, also knows a vast amount, and Hans Ree has published some interesting works on chess history.
While Tim Krabbe's site no longer updates, there's a wealth of material to be found there:
https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/chess.html
and for good measure:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
It's on the list! Currently I'm skimming a book or two trying to find some >> good middle game advice, but eventually I will come to the Bobby Fischer and >> other stories book. I started it, but it was kind of heavy on the games, so I
switched to the excellent Sosonko book (which I now finished), but maybe I >> should just disregard the games and enjoy the stories?
I did. I don't generally bother with unannotated games. And as I am too lazy to set up a board, I only read games with at least one diagram per 25 moves as I can't really keep track of the position for longer than that, even with the printed moves to guide me.
What a guy! Reminds me of the book reminiscences of a stock operator. The guy
went from 0 to billion 3 times in his career, and finally killed himself.
That would be Jesse Livermore. Forgot the first rule of the rich, salt away some of your gains. He liked to bet everything.
Talk about a high stakes game!
And then had to run from the nazis. What a century!
But he did win a brilliancy prize against Najdorf, in a game played at age 72.
William Hyde
Blueshirt wrote:
D wrote:There are a number of online bridge servers, some free.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I admit I'm trying to improve my chess game, but I'm also
trying to improve my bridge, and editing a book. And I'm
lazy.
Ah bridge! I often thought if I should get into that, but the
fact that it would require 3 other people, and a regular
partner makes it too much trouble.
My Nan used to play Bridge (double)... but I haven't a clue how
to play it. She used to read Omar Shariff's Bridge newspaper
column religiously every day. When I hear about the game I think
of her.
LiBridge?! :-)
I play on bridgebase.com, but only to train myself at card and hand
counting.
There are, I am told, better servers, but they use conventions I do not
know.
Victor Mollo wrote a series of columns, collected into books, about two fictional bridge clubs. At one point the Hog (best player in the books) concocts 117 pages of new system for an upcoming tournament but tells his weak partner to study only page 1. The other 116 are to use up the opposition's time.
William Hyde
I knew it! ;) Why do you think it's crap? Do you mean the link, or the
study
that the link links to?
We've done this before, remember? You won't respond substantively to anything I say, so let's keep this to chess and other games.
Wow, thank you! Plenty to read! In fact, it seems to be a fundamental fact >> and
frustration of life. Too many interesting books to read and so little time. >> =/
Exactly my problem.
Do you know everything? ;) Did you read the book and if so, did you like
it?
I've not read that book. But I used to invest a lot, and read widely. The lessons of various crashes were something I wanted to learn.
Add Galbraith's "A Short History of Financial Euphoria" to your pile. It lives up to the title and is indeed short. And fascinating. He also wrote a more detailed look at the 29 crash.
72, there is hope yet! Are you 72?
Not yet. But I doubt that I could beat Najdorf even if he were alive at age 114.
William Hyde
The vast majority, I would think. Virtually all of those who didn't
have a profession outside chess. Lasker and Steinitz both died poor,
Alekhine was dashing off articles to pay for his cigarettes and booze in
his last weeks.
While Tim Krabbe's site no longer updates, there's a wealth of
material to be found there:
https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/chess.html
and for good measure:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
Wow, thank you! Plenty to read! In fact, it seems to be a fundamental
fact and
frustration of life. Too many interesting books to read and so little
time. =/
Exactly my problem.
The real gambler was Janowski, on and off the board. Wasn't at all >successful off the board. Not to be confused with Canadian GM Yanofsky,
not a gambler at all.
What?! No Canadian?
I invented one myself, as a joke. I convinced a partner to play it with
me in rubber bridge, and we did rather well, but probably because my
partner was an extremely good player (master at chess, as well).
I called it "system" or "My System" after Nimzowitsch, and pronounced it >German style.
It would not be allowed in a tournament, of course.
Standard American may be slightly less common here than in the US, but
at the club level it is still the overwhelming choice.
The best player at our club for years played ACOL (a British system),
the best players now play Precision or some variant thereof.
William Hyde
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 15:11:38 -0500, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
While Tim Krabbe's site no longer updates, there's a wealth of
material to be found there:
https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/chess.html
and for good measure:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
Wow, thank you! Plenty to read! In fact, it seems to be a fundamental
fact and
frustration of life. Too many interesting books to read and so little
time. =/
Exactly my problem.
The latter also has links to Chess Archaeology http://www.chessarch.com/archive/articles.shtml
which includes a game between 2 GMs played by correspondence featuring
1 e4 e5 2 Ke2 - bet neither Liren nor Gukesh has "prepared" THAT!
I've not read that book. But I used to invest a lot, and read widely. The >>> lessons of various crashes were something I wanted to learn.
Did (do) you do well?
I took a fair amount of punishment after a lucky start gave me an exaggerated idea of my ability. But eventually I found my strengths and played to that. I did not trade often.
My two favourites that have been very rewarding for me, both financially
and in
terms of knowledge are:
The intelligent investor (ii) by Benjamin Graham,
If I could but recall the details I'd get you laughing with the story of how a friend and I attempted to apply Graham's method to a small communications stock that had fallen on hard times.
While the details are lost to history, we thought we were being utterly ruthless in assigning the company's assets a very low value, pessimistic in the extreme on accounts owing, and so forth. We thus arrived at a breakup value about twice the stock price.
Lucky I didn't put much into it. The stock went to zero in no time, assets sold for the cost of carting them away.
In theory I still own the shares, as they can't be traded anywhere.
Not yet. But I doubt that I could beat Najdorf even if he were alive at
age 114.
Let's see once you get there!
If Najdorf stays dead, I'm pretty sure I can win on time.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 14:59:02 -0500, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The vast majority, I would think. Virtually all of those who didn't
have a profession outside chess. Lasker and Steinitz both died poor,
Alekhine was dashing off articles to pay for his cigarettes and booze in >>> his last weeks.
Not to mention marrying heiresses who wanted his Russian title.
That was Von Bardeleben. Alekhine was, or said he was, of the nobility but did not have a title. Many in the Russian nobility did not, for example Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
There have been countless conspiracy theories posited about that event.
Keres's results took a dive when his country was fought over in WWII. Sources tell me that he never liked the Soviets, always maintaining some resentment against the system, much as he liked some individuals, particularly fellow victims like Tal and Bronstein. He never had the inner calm of his earlier career. Only in the early 1950s did he regain his previous form.
I also have met people who have indications of being noble, x generations
back, but the paperwork or proof has been lost. Many of those are also very >> bitter.
The UK is different, in that second and later sons of nobles are considered to be commoners (though some get a courtesy title) so one may easily be
descended in the male line from a titled ancestor, but have no title yourself. At one point twenty percent of the Spanish population could claim to be noble, which was a serious burden on the economy.
Euwe of course did have a job, and according to Chess Review actually
worked during AVRO. Which, if so, makes his 7-7 score against the
world's elite astounding. We know that he did work during other
tournaments held in the Netherlands. Imagine putting in an eight hour
day, and then having to face a well-rested Reshevsky or Keres?
Our only First Gentleman so far (more or less), and a tough standard to
meet for future ones.
One of my colleagues at Dalhousie, circa 1990, had a book on his shelves >which belonged to Divinsky. "Owen", I said, "You've stolen a book from
the prime minister's husband!".
There are similar constructed hands, with thirteen cards, which look >marvelous but cost money. Charles Schwab is said to have lost ten
thousand dollars on one of them (it may have been the one called the
"Duke of Cumberland" hand, presumably named after an earlier victim).
There's a similar hand in a Bond novel, and I think movie, in which Bond
bids a grand slam against his opponent's massive hand, doubled and
redoubled. But the distribution is freakish enough that the contract is >cold.
So Winston Churchill's father, second son of the Duke of Marlborough,
was called "Lord Randolph Churchill". But he was legally a commoner,
and was an elected member of the House of Commons, not a birthright
member of the House of Lords.
Courtesy titles of this kind are not passed on, so Winston was plain "Mr >Churchill" until he accepted a knighthood.
George Orwell was not an aristocrat, but his family belonged to that
fringe of the upper class where the only allowed careers for the boys
were "Army, Navy, Church, Law". Orwell broke the code by being a
writer, but even worse, at one time he owned a shop.
The duke of Wellington, born a second son to an Irish aristocrat, would >rather have been a musician, but eventually accepted that he had to go
into the army. I hear he did rather well at it.
D wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024, William Hyde wrote:
I also have met people who have indications of being noble, x generations >>>> back, but the paperwork or proof has been lost. Many of those are also >>>> very bitter.
The UK is different, in that second and later sons of nobles are
considered to be commoners (though some get a courtesy title) so one may >>> easily be
I had no idea! What is the courtesy title? I would imagine that many figure >> in
the press and enjoy their courtesy titles very much.
The two highest ranks of nobility in the UK are Duke and Marquis. The second and later sons of people with these titles are styled "Lord".
So Winston Churchill's father, second son of the Duke of Marlborough, was called "Lord Randolph Churchill". But he was legally a commoner, and was an elected member of the House of Commons, not a birthright member of the House of Lords.
Courtesy titles of this kind are not passed on, so Winston was plain "Mr Churchill" until he accepted a knighthood.
To this day I meet people in discussion who think that Randolph was in the house of lords, but it is actually critical to Winston's development that his father was in the house of commons.
At least, if my source is correct. Long time since I read that. But as I understand it, attitudes changed. I guess they had to.
The problem wasn't unique to Spain.
George Orwell was not an aristocrat, but his family belonged to that fringe of the upper class where the only allowed careers for the boys were "Army, Navy, Church, Law". Orwell broke the code by being a writer, but even worse, at one time he owned a shop.
The duke of Wellington, born a second son to an Irish aristocrat, would rather have been a musician, but eventually accepted that he had to go into the army. I hear he did rather well at it.
William Hyde
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:38:07 -0500, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
Euwe of course did have a job, and according to Chess Review actually
worked during AVRO. Which, if so, makes his 7-7 score against the
world's elite astounding. We know that he did work during other
tournaments held in the Netherlands. Imagine putting in an eight hour
day, and then having to face a well-rested Reshevsky or Keres?
I hadn't heard that story before though that also sounds like some of
his situations in the 1948 Match-Tournament.
I have my doubts about the chess review story. It was a fine magazine but not noted for seriously fact-checking articles. Still, it might be true.
I know that in the Moscow section of the 1948 event Euwe had no second, while all the soviets had GM seconds. In the Hague I think his second was Van Scheltinga (Reshevsky also did not have a second, Prins was given this job, at least for the Hague games).
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:38:07 -0500, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
Euwe of course did have a job, and according to Chess Review actually >>>>> worked during AVRO. Which, if so, makes his 7-7 score against the
world's elite astounding. We know that he did work during other
tournaments held in the Netherlands. Imagine putting in an eight hour >>>>> day, and then having to face a well-rested Reshevsky or Keres?
I hadn't heard that story before though that also sounds like some of
his situations in the 1948 Match-Tournament.
I have my doubts about the chess review story. It was a fine magazine but >>> not noted for seriously fact-checking articles. Still, it might be true. >>>
I know that in the Moscow section of the 1948 event Euwe had no second,
while all the soviets had GM seconds. In the Hague I think his second was >>> Van Scheltinga (Reshevsky also did not have a second, Prins was given this >>> job, at least for the Hague games).
What does the second do? Does he have any privileges in the chess team,
that other do not?
One of the things a second does is take care of day to day stuff. This is greatly underestimated. Travel almost always involves problems, lost luggage, incompatible equipment (especially in the past), room problems (especially in communist countries) and so on. A player does better when shielded from this.
Even in the US, I was once booked into a room with a powerful smell of insecticide, and a second time into a room just above a furnace, far too hot to sleep in. Dealing with obstructive management over this took time and effort (to admit that I was right would be to admit to their superiors that they had erred badly, e.g. spilled chemicals) and they tried hard to avoid making any such admission). Wish I'd had a second.
Take that situation, and imagine it in Warsaw in 1951.
More commonly, a player aids in preparation for games, checking out the openings being used by an upcoming opponent and, more controversially aiding in analysis of adjourned games.
While the latter became standard practice, some players avoided it. Reshevsky and Larsen for example. In his world championship match, Fischer had his second check his adjournment analysis, but he didn't participate in it. At one point Fischer had Larsen as a second. The latter called it a strange experience, but kept quiet about the extent of his help.
William Hyde
How come it was critical to his development?
He was haunted by his father's political career, which effectively came to an end after a badly timed resignation of his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer (basically the second highest post in the government).
Churchill always wanted to be prime minister, but almost as much he wanted to be the Chancellor in some way to deal with his father's loss.
He attained that goal about forty years after his father's resignation.
He resigned from the conservative party for much the same reasons that his father quit the government. But he hadn't burned his bridges with the opposition (his father was fiercely partisan) and was able to join the Liberal party.
At least, if my source is correct. Long time since I read that. But as I >>> understand it, attitudes changed. I guess they had to.
They probably devolved into commoners. In sweden it is very common from
time to time to meet someone from the nobility that's "common". Some remote >> ancestor did not take care of the estate, and in the end, they just ended
up living in a regular house with a regular job.
Or they just had too many kids. The younger sons never inherited much, and by the time you get to the younger son of a younger son of a younger son there's nothing left but the title.
Not having a title made it easier for younger sons of English nobility to seek alternate forms of wealth. Not only the ones cited by Orwell, but even ... commerce. The grandson of a noble who makes a fortune in textiles might lose a bit of cachet with the aristocratic crowd, but money has a cachet of it's own. And titles can be bought.
I've met one member of a family, where that started to happen, but what
they did was to have every single member of the extended family contribute >> to a common fund, to keep their ancestral castle running. So it's actually >> more of a burden for them, than a benefit. I think they have done the
regular thing and it's used as a museum, event place, they have a park,
cafe etc.
In Sweden?
I stumbled across a memoir by one of the Dukes of Bedford on his bizarre upbringing and on how his family lost most of their money (bad investments, frequent deaths and inheritance taxes). He strove to keep the family home going as above.
Apparently he succeeded:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woburn_Abbey
But the family does have one street named after their relative who was a
general hundreds of hundreds of years ago.
There are plenty of things out there with my last name on them. But the people they are named for are no relation to me at all.
William Hyde
This is very sinister. Couldn't you just make up that you were allergic and >> ask for another room? Usually, if the hotel is not fully booked, changing
to an equivalent room is no problem at all. Maybe they were fully booked.
They would have had to prepare rooms that were not ready.
I know that in the Moscow section of the 1948 event Euwe had no second, while
all the soviets had GM seconds. In the Hague I think his second was Van
Scheltinga (Reshevsky also did not have a second, Prins was given this job, >> at least for the Hague games).
What does the second do? Does he have any privileges in the chess team,
that other do not?
IS< true then probably more of Tal's help probably could have gottenTaimanov on the scoresheet (e.g. not 6-0).
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 10:42:04 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I know that in the Moscow section of the 1948 event Euwe had no second, while
all the soviets had GM seconds. In the Hague I think his second was Van >>> Scheltinga (Reshevsky also did not have a second, Prins was given this job, >>> at least for the Hague games).
What does the second do? Does he have any privileges in the chess team,
that other do not?
What a second did THEN vs now are two quite different things. These
days a second would do opening prep and post-mortems.
In the old days when games were adjourned either overnight or until
the next gap in play a second would do analysis all night long (or at
least until his prep was completed) and present his analysis to the
player in the morning.
It is said that Tal (who was Taimanov's second in his 1971 match with Fischer) got in very big trouble back in Moscow as the rumor was that
he spent a large part of his evening analysis time watching the NHL
Stanley Cup playoffs on TV. I have no idea whether this was true or
not but the match certainly took place at that time of year. If it
IS< true then probably more of Tal's help probably could have gottenTaimanov on the scoresheet (e.g. not 6-0).
I do not know whether Larsen had a second in his second round
Candidates match vs Fischer (which was in Denver, CO and was also 6-0)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:18:44 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,115 |