Well, not really, but ...
I discovered something amusing yesterday. In the last round at Hastings 1895 Von Bardeleben, needing a win to be among the prize winners, answered 1e4 with 1g6 - the modern defense. I play this against Stockfish all the time, and the 1895 game went just as my games against the computer tend to go in this line. White attacks prematurely with an early h4, black beats back the attack and wins the endgame. Of course the tactics in the Hastings game were much superior. I rarely go through a game without a blunder or two.
Pollock, the Canadian entry in that event, is also interesting. He
finished near the bottom, but scored six wins, including ones against Steinitz and Tarrasch. Both were decent games, not ones where the
stronger players blundered badly.
Twice he tried the Benoni defense, much to the disapproval of the annotators, but he got good positions out of the opening, only going wrong later as he didn't have a grasp yet of how to play Benoni middlegames. Unsurprisingly.
Shall we dethrone Nimzowitsch and Reti and put the beginning of Hypermodern chess back to 1895, with Von Bardeleben and Pollock as its founders?
All of this is from the centennial edition of the Hastings 1895
tournament book. Every game is annotated by a tournament
participant, but never by one of the players in that specific
game, which gives (to me) interesting insights.
https://www.amazon.com/Hastings-1895-Centennial-Sid-Pickard/dp/1886846014
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
William Hyde
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
However, it is possible to get a copy of the Hastings book for less than
$30, though how it differs from the 1995 version I do not know. Though
I assume it uses English descriptive notation.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:34:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
However, it is possible to get a copy of the Hastings book for less than
$30, though how it differs from the 1995 version I do not know. Though
I assume it uses English descriptive notation.
One of my dreams since my teens has been visiting the Hastings
Tournament but it's now "just" a major Swiss rather than the GM round
robins that were typical before WW2. My daughter emigrated to Britain
and now lives in Brighton but that would mean spending Christmas there
- which would exclude my other two children. By car Hastings is about
an hour from Brighton.
(Our daughter emigrated in 2014 and we went to Britain in June 2016
and had a great time - we flew home the Saturday before the Brexit
referendum so saw a lot of campaigning plus lots of other high points
like walking down the center aisle of both the Commons and Lords which happened to be the only day during our trip when we could since it was
on a Friday and the politicians reconvened the following Monday and
adjourned the day before the referendum - which was after we came
home. We also made a side trip to Belfast and saw the Game of Thrones shooting sites as well as visiting a cemetary where several of my
forebears are buried - including the man I named my son for - he
commanded a ship during WW1 and did plenty of notable things beyond
that)
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea. Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea. Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries >>>>> might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can learn >> something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the "general" kind of >> books such as the two Laskers.
Tal was known to watch beginner's programs on soviet TV.
I'm sure that even at my peak I could have learned more from either Lasker.
And now that I've forgotten so much, I can learn even more!
But it is best to switch to another book, and only come back to the first later. It's not for you, but I recommend switching between manuals and game collections, with far more of the latter as you get stronger.
William Hyde
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move twenty two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a master in a speed
game. At move twenty three he'd used most of his time, I'd used
fifteen seconds. With my extra time I managed to hang on for the draw. Not much reward for the work.
He erred, incidentally, on about move six. But I had not memorized how to take advantage of that error, so I just transposed back to the main line. No matter how much you memorize, it is never enough.
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the "general" >kind of books such as the two Laskers.
For me, since I don't play professionally, and since my chess mood comes
and goes, it feels that I can easily read them a couple of times over and >pick up something here and there.
Usually I have an intense period of focus, then I might not touch a chess >board for 5-6 months, then the mood hits me again, and I might read or
play intensely for a month or two.
On and off it goes.
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying. Studying openings without the games
is a dry business.
I never found openings invaluable, except in postal chess. Opening
ideas are far more important for those of use who are not playing at a
2400 level.
One exception would be with risky openings like the Modern. While it is >perfectly sound, a small error can get you crushed. So I once knew that >fairly well.
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move twenty
two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a master in
a speed game. At move twenty three he'd used most of his time, I'd used >fifteen seconds. With my extra time I managed to hang on for the draw.
Not much reward for the work.
He erred, incidentally, on about move six. But I had not memorized how
to take advantage of that error, so I just transposed back to the main
line. No matter how much you memorize, it is never enough.
My question is this: For how many moves do you find openings invaluable? Some of them go on for as long as twenty moves I've seen, but I have limits on time to study new openings.
Well, the main line is just that for a reason. And he was a very good
player. No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea of what >> kind of moves worked. Still, there were points at which he could have
deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton of money >> because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many thought they >> did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and counting.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with
great success. Nobody knew much about it.
"How can I swindle him?", became the first question I asked after I'd >blundered. Along with "Can I make his win more difficult?". I was
quite surprised at how often it was possible to win lost games.
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with >>>>> great success. Nobody knew much about it.
Oh, you are not american?
Nein.
Sind sie ein berliner?
I am not Bernard Samson.
Nor do I play him on TV.
William Hyde
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:08:26 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
I love speed chess but could never get used to playing it on a server.
Somehow when it's just me and the monitor my attention doesn't hold
well...
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:04:32 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
The point of course is that backgammon is often played for money andWell, the main line is just that for a reason. And he was a very good
player. No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea of what >>> kind of moves worked. Still, there were points at which he could have
deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton of money
because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many thought they >>> did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and counting.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
being a faster game means you have the potential for more wins :)
D wrote:
I can not play speed chess at all. I have a perfectionist streak, so
moving a piece without knowing (or think that I know, that is) exactly >>>> why gives me enormous psychological pain.
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would just >>> make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm pretty >>> darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost one or two >>> games.
Hmm, interesting! Maybe I should try and find out if there's an optimal
timing
for me? Now I am curious. Maybe I'll try a 15 and 30 game to see how it
goes.
It's not so much time as attitude. I was better at g/15 than g/5,
but in the latter I raised my rating 900 points over three months, from
a hideous 500 points below my OTB to 300 above.
I did it largely by not caring about blunders. I finally realized that in speed you have no time to lament your errors. Every move is a new position and it must be dealt with as is, never mind if you were winning last move.
Previously, after blundering a piece I would inevitably lose the game. But I noticed that other people didn't always lose when they dropped a piece against me. Something was wrong here.
"How can I swindle him?", became the first question I asked after I'd blundered. Along with "Can I make his win more difficult?". I was quite surprised at how often it was possible to win lost games.
And I won a lot of class prizes along the way. Sometimes as much as $2.50!
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively
against 1e4 and with great success. Nobody knew much
about it.
Oh, you are not american?
Nein.
Sind sie ein berliner?
I am not Bernard Samson.
Nor do I play him on TV.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:08:26 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...I have exactly the same feeling.
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
I love speed chess but could never get used to playing it on a server.
Somehow when it's just me and the monitor my attention doesn't hold
well...
Plus with my hand I could move a piece in a second or less. Not with a >mouse.
Makes excellent sense! Is there a culture somewhere of playing chess for
money (apart from modern tournaments that is)? Or has it always been too
much of a gentlemans game?
Chess has always been played for money. Emanuel Lasker and his brother got their start at the Cafe Kaiserhof in Berlin, playing for the cash they needed for tuition and food. Their income was limited for a while as between them they only had one pair of trousers respectable enough for the cafe.
Chess propositions were common hundreds of years ago. People would create chess positions, study them thoroughly, then offer to play anybody for money, taking either side. I don't think this is common any longer, but bets on backgammon propositions are. A friend made a nice pile of money after getting 9-1 odds on a prop which he had deduced to be somewhat under 8-1.
The best games to play for money are those in which skill is less obvious. The more obvious skill is, the quicker people stop playing you.
The same man who will lose $50 against you at chess before giving up will lose $500 at backgammon, convinced that only the dice are making him lose. And he'll come back the next day.
A friend fondly recalls one "Jack the Armenian" who was good for a thousand dollars an hour at backgammon. He went away for a year and studied and was only good for $600 an hour. Then his wife intervened and he was never seen again.
Poker, of course, is better yet. My friends who were making a decent living at backgammon made far more when casinos opened up hereabouts. One is in fact rich now.
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it look like your wins were accidental. But that's not easy and eventually the mark catches on.
I have heard that in bridge, originally, it was frowned upon to play for
money.
Bridge originates with whist, which was always a money game.
William Hyde
Fascinating, thank you for sharing! You are a fountain of chess history.
You should write a book. I would buy it!
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it
look like your wins were accidental. But that's not easy and eventually
the
mark catches on.
I watched a youtube series about a guy who learned to become a
professional black jack player. It seems very boring, but at the same
time, it was
fascinating to see all the tricks, disguising, suboptimal playing etc.
they utilized to trick the casinos.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 10:02:16 +0000, D wrote:
Fascinating, thank you for sharing! You are a fountain of chess history.
You should write a book. I would buy it!
Or just write it chapter by chapter and post it here !
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it
look like your wins were accidental. But that's not easy and eventually >>> the
mark catches on.
I watched a youtube series about a guy who learned to become a
professional black jack player. It seems very boring, but at the same
time, it was
fascinating to see all the tricks, disguising, suboptimal playing etc.
they utilized to trick the casinos.
True story: I was once asked to leave a casino as I was doing well at
the Blackjack table. And I wasn't even cheating. I had a reasonably good memory at the time and was getting a bit of luck too. After giving me
some free drinks they basically said would you mind taking your business elsewhere. They also gave me two decks of their house cards - that had
been cancelled - as a souvenir. I don't know how professional Blackjack players that ARE counting cards get away with it for any length of time
as the casinos don't like to see anyone win and not give it all back to
them thirty minutes later, as is usually the case when you get lucky.
However, I'm of the mind that given enough time to figure out what's going to be a high hand, I'm good enough to win even if they cheat. I've read books, etc., played often, and fleeced my grandma at nickel point Buck Euchre before she passed away.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 151:36:40 |
| Calls: | 9,699 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,732 |
| Messages: | 6,179,039 |
| Posted today: | 1 |