Strange new book on opening novelties
MikeMurray
(http://www.chesscafe.com/hansen/hansen.htm
panning a new book by one Andrew Tocher on opening novelties
Checking the USCF database, I find an Andrew B Tocher here in
Washington State, rated 1062.
Anybody know this guy, and why he's writing a book on openings (and
how it came to be published) ?
Taylor Kingston
I know nothing about Tocher, but from experience, for example here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review388.pdf
I can vouch that some books from Thinker's Press should never have
seen print. Perhaps Bob Long's discretionary faculties have eroded
even further.
Offramp
That book looks like a MegaTunguska Super-Krakatoa to me. Has
publishing got so cheap that they can afford to fling out these books
will-he-nill-he?
Offramp
wrote:
Good review! But it fails to address oe fascinating question?
Why did Carlos Almarza-Mato, who I believe is an American, write an
article for the Scottish Correspondence Chess
Association Magazine? My top-of-head theory is that the article was
trolleyed round Chess Life, Chess, BCM Europe Echecs etc, the the
analogous Corres chess mags, before finally alighting on the doorstep
of the dreaded Scottich Corres mag who snapped it up.
sd
wrote:
> I can vouch that some books from Thinker's Press should never have
> seen print. Perhaps Bob Long's discretionary faculties have eroded
> even further.
From looking at his blog, it appears Long has converted TP into a
mostly "for hire" book service.
SBD
raylopez99
So TP has become a vanity book publishing site? Then you can publish
your crummy compositions Dr. Fart. And go to NIC and have "My 60 Most
Memorable Losses" published with your name on the spine.
Post one of your OTB games--we need a good laugh.
RL
Taylor Kingston
But Long is still keeping a personal hand in, writing a long
introduction to this travesty of a book. Good grief, it advocates
opening by pushing the QRP, then moving the QR — for either side! I
can just imagine a game between two adherents of the Tocher System:
1.a3 a6 2.Ra2 Ra7 3.h3 h6 4.Rh2 Rh7
Here, recognizing each other's infallible command of opening theory,
they agree to a draw.
Thinker's Press has put out some good books over the years, but also
some real stinkers. Long has also dealt questionably with some of his
authors; see for example what Alex Dunne says here:
sd
writing a book." -
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
SBD
raylopez99
wrote:
> Thinker's Press has put out some good books over the years, but also
> some real stinkers. Long has also dealt questionably with some of his
> authors; see for example what Alex Dunne says here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review374.pdf
Dunne says? What about what you said?
TK: "Indeed, one wonders why that mild quote went while a truly
tasteless one about Michael Wilder exposing himself to Bent Larsen
stayed in."
Wilder is an attorney now. To become an attorney, you need to have
the state bar certify that you are not a pervert. So how did he get
in? And once in, after showing his (rigid?) member to the late, great
Bent Larsen, why did Mr. Larsen not get bent out of shape and "disbar"
the wild Mr. Wilder?
That's the kind of scuttlebutt you are spreading TK, if I read that
passage correctly.
RL
Offramp
> On Dec 2, 4:10 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Thinker's Press has put out some good books over the years, but also
> > some real stinkers. Long has also dealt questionably with some of his
> > authors; see for example what Alex Dunne says here:
>
> >http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review374.pdf
>
> Dunne says? What about what you said?
>
> TK: "Indeed, one wonders why that mild quote went while a truly
> tasteless one about Michael Wilder exposing himself to Bent Larsen
> stayed in."
>
> Wilder is an attorney now. To become an attorney, you need to have
> the state bar certify that you are not a pervert. So how did he get
> in? And once in, after showing his (rigid?) member to the late, great
> Bent Larsen, why did Mr. Larsen not get bent out of shape and "disbar"
> the wild Mr. Wilder?
At the time he was Straight Larsen.
ChessFire
on either side of a straight Traxler?
---
Novelties are OK as long as you have the wit to survive the
circumstances, like Miles' 1 ... b5 against Karpov, and won! But
otherwise the point of playing them seems to be to take the other
player out of the book — but if you are not so strong as the other
player, then this is not typically a good strategy, since you get into
a tactical mess earlier than if you had clung to a main-line, and it's
the stronger player who typically does better by being out of the
book.
If you happen to be the stronger player [say 200+ points] then you
don't as much need opening novelties as much as gearing the game to
your own style of play. How many 1600 players are clueless in the
King's Gambit after 6 moves, eg?
If these books are for sub-1600 level play, then while some benefit
may obtain by presenting a surprise, it is likely a better use of time
to spend time on other aspects of the game — those which allow you to
win after a surprise, eg.
So patzers buy chess books and cram them hoping that rote learning
some lines for only $19.95 is a winning strategy. I guess we all did
it. And if you don't have a teacher or a stronger player around, then
it might all resolve around the brightest colored book jacket on the
chess shelves at the store.
A better idea is to get into a range of tactical options which you can
know from your base /tabla/ and let the other guy use up his time
earlier in the game.
There do seem to be some good systemic opening books around — Dave
Rudel's Zuke 'Em is one on the Colle-Zukertort. A very solid system
says GM Summerscale, but with a fair amount of surprises in it.
There seem to be all sorts of /tabla/ in these books not much
explored, even after 5 moves. Researching what happens away from the
board in these set-ups seems to be a good use of time.
Phil Innes
Andrew B.
> A better idea is to get into a range of tactical options which you can
> know from your base /tabla/ and let the other guy use up his time
> earlier in the game.
... and ...
> There seem to be all sorts of /tabla/ in these books not much
> explored, even after 5 moves.
Tabla are drums. You probably mean tabiya.
Taylor Kingston
>
> Novelties are OK as long as you have the wit to survive the
> circumstances, like Miles' 1 ... b5 against Karpov, and won!
Not quite, Phil. The game opened 1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5:
[Event "EU-chT (Men)"]
[Site "Skara"]
[Date "1980.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Karpov, Anatoly"]
[Black "Miles, Anthony J"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B00"]
[WhiteElo "2725"]
[BlackElo "2545"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "1980.01.??"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "SWE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 a6 2. d4 b5 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Qe2 e6 6. a4 c5 7. dxc5
Bxc5 8. Nbd2 b4 9. e5 Nd5 10. Ne4 Be7 11. O-O Nc6 12. Bd2 Qc7 13. c4
bxc3 14. Nxc3 Nxc3 15. Bxc3 Nb4 16. Bxb4 Bxb4 17. Rac1 Qb6 18. Be4 O-O
19. Ng5 h6 20. Bh7+ Kh8 21. Bb1 Be7 22. Ne4 Rac8 23. Qd3 Rxc1 24. Rxc1
Qxb2 25. Re1 Qxe5 26. Qxd7 Bb4 27. Re3 Qd5 28. Qxd5 Bxd5 29. Nc3 Rc8
30. Ne2 g5 31. h4 Kg7 32. hxg5 hxg5 33. Bd3 a5 34. Rg3 Kf6 35. Rg4 Bd6
36. Kf1 Be5 37. Ke1 Rh8 38. f4 gxf4 39. Nxf4 Bc6 40. Ne2 Rh1+ 41. Kd2
Rh2 42. g3 Bf3 43. Rg8 Rg2 44. Ke1 Bxe2 45. Bxe2 Rxg3 46. Ra8 Bc7 0-1
Interesting thing about Miles' record against Karpov: they drew
every game where Miles had White, whereas with Black Miles did
dreadfully, +2 -13 =4. So this game was exceptional for more than the
opening.
ChessFire
wrote:
To Andrew B: you are correct in his spelling of tabiya [mine was
phonetic if you happen to be a Catalonian]
> Interesting thing about Miles' record against Karpov: they drew
> every game where Miles had White, whereas with Black Miles did
> dreadfully, +2 -13 =4. So this game was exceptional for more than the
> opening.
To Taylor; I think the game in question was the final of the BBC
series The Master Game played in London [not Skara], and because of a
strike never shown on air — but Ray Keene reports on it.
Phil
Taylor Kingston
>
> To Taylor; I think the game in question was the final of the BBC
> series The Master Game played in London [not Skara], and because of a
> strike never shown on air — but Ray Keene reports on it.
Nope, that was played at Bath, not London, and it was a normal Caro-
Kann, not any 1...b5 weirdness:
[Event "Bath TV-1pl"]
[Site "Bath"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Karpov, Anatoly"]
[Black "Miles, Anthony J"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B16"]
[WhiteElo "2710"]
[BlackElo "2585"]
[PlyCount "78"]
[EventDate "1983.11.??"]
[EventType "game"]
[EventRounds "1"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ gxf6 6. Nf3 Bf5 7.
Bf4 Nd7 8. c3 Qb6 9. b4 e5 10. Bg3 O-O-O 11. Be2 h5 12. O-O Be4 13.
Nd2 Bd5 14. Bxh5 exd4 15. c4 Be6 16. a3 Ne5 17. Re1 d3 18. c5 Qb5 19.
Rb1 Bh6 20. a4 Qa6 21. f4 Nc4 22. b5 cxb5 23. Rxb5 Na3 24. Rb2 Nc2 25.
Bf3 Bd5 26. Re7 Bf8 27. Bxd5 Rxd5 28. Rbxb7 Bxe7 29. Rxe7 Qc6 30. Rxf7
Rxc5 31. Qg4+ f5 32. Qg7 Re8 33. h4 Ne3 34. Bf2 Rc1+ 35. Kh2 Ng4+ 36.
Kg3 Nxf2 37. Nf3 Ne4+ 38. Kh2 d2 39. Nxd2 Nxd2 0-1
If you don't want to believe ChessBase, check out "Tony Miles: 'It's
Only Me'" (Batsford 2003), page 162.
MikeMurray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
>To Andrew B: you are correct in his spelling of tabiya [mine was
>phonetic if you happen to be a Catalonian]
Phil evidently believes that tabiya is some sort of Spanish for
"table". Well, the Arabs *did* control most of the Iberian Peninsula
at one time, and it's not too big a stretch to find some overlap in
meaning, but.... NAAAAA.
sd
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:48:41 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> >To Andrew B: you are correct in his spelling of tabiya [mine was
> >phonetic if you happen to be a Catalonian]
>
> Phil evidently believes that tabiya is some sort of Spanish for
> "table". Well, the Arabs *did* control most of the Iberian Peninsula
> at one time, and it's not too big a stretch to find some overlap in
> meaning, but.... NAAAAA.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt - although why I would do that, I
don't know , given his other proclamations regarding foreign languages
- I asked a friend of mine in Barcelona. It would be pronounced
exactly as spelled in Spanish, and if he is trying to make a claim
that it is Catalan or Catalonian, my friend assures me, as always,
Phil is FOS. No such word or no such pronounciation in Catalan. One
wonder how"tabiya" is spelled phonetically in Schwaebisch or Andean?
SBD
Taylor Kingston
> On Dec 7, 5:21 pm, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:48:41 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> > <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >To Andrew B: you are correct in his spelling of tabiya [mine was
> > >phonetic if you happen to be a Catalonian]
>
> > Phil evidently believes that tabiya is some sort of Spanish for
> > "table". Well, the Arabs *did* control most of the Iberian Peninsula
> > at one time, and it's not too big a stretch to find some overlap in
> > meaning, but.... NAAAAA.
>
> Giving him the benefit of the doubt - although why I would do that, I
> don't know , given his other proclamations regarding foreign languages
The only benefit of the doubt I can give Phil is that he may have
been confusing "tabiya" with "tablas," the Spanish chess term for a
draw.
> - I asked a friend of mine in Barcelona. It would be pronounced
> exactly as spelled in Spanish, and if he is trying to make a claim
> that it is Catalan or Catalonian, my friend assures me, as always,
> Phil is FOS. No such word or no such pronounciation in Catalan.
And in any event, "tabiya" is Arabic in origin.
MikeMurray
<taylor....@comcast.net> wrote:
> And in any event, "tabiya" is Arabic in origin.
It's become a very trendy word in chess manuals of late. Until about
a decade ago, I don't think I ever saw it used.
Taylor Kingston
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:04:08 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
>
> > And in any event, "tabiya" is Arabic in origin.
>
> It's become a very trendy word in chess manuals of late. Until about
> a decade ago, I don't think I ever saw it used.
I seem to recall seeing it as far back as the 1960s, but can't
recall where. It refers to playing the opening by setting up a certain
formation with little or no regard to the opponent's moves. Back in
the days of shatranj, when the queen and bishop were much weaker than
today, and the pawns were not allowed a two-step move, this was not as
unreasonable as it sounds. Arab writings from the first millennium AD,
for example by as-Suli and al-Lajlaj, described various tabiyat such
as the Sayyal (torrent), the mujannah (flank opening) and the
muwashshah ("richly girdled").
When the modern rules came into effect, and the opposing forces got
into contact much more quickly, playing a tabiya became far less
feasible. Perhaps a few openings, such as the King's Indian (as
defense or attack), or the Colle System, can be considered modern
tabiyat.
sd
wrote:
> On Dec 8, 11:02 am, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > It's become a very trendy word in chess manuals of late. Until about
> > a decade ago, I don't think I ever saw it used.
>
> I seem to recall seeing it as far back as the 1960s, but can't
> recall where.
I thought it was widely used by the Soviets, and with their players
and literature, etc, becoming more available to us in the 1970s and
beyond, it started to be used in chess writing in English more often.
But that is just one of those "how I remember it" things- I am sure
Marfia, Russell, or Parr would know, though.
SBD
raylopez99
> But that is just one of those "how I remember it" things- I am sure
> Marfia, Russell, or Parr would know, though.
>
Yeah. I'm sure your ratings are inflated too. Playing your cronies.
What *is* that smell?
RL
William Hyde
> on either side of a straight Traxler?
All I know about the opening is the name, which I generally confuse
with a strategically important Dutch waterway.
> If you happen to be the stronger player [say 200+ points] then you
> don't as much need opening novelties as much as gearing the game to
> your own style of play. How many 1600 players are clueless in the
> King's Gambit after 6 moves, eg?
In most KG lines I'm out of book by move seven myself. And I play it,
at least in speed chess.
Long ago I played the modern in a game with a 1300 player. I didn't
know the line, he didn't know the line, yet later analysis showed we
were still in book about move ten. He had, unusually, a pretty good
grasp of opening principles, and I think went on to become a very much
stronger player.
Then there's the sad story of a game played by a friend of mine. He'd
reached a 2300 rating with virtually no opening knowledge, but since
he was playing for Canada in the student olympiad he booked up on a
few lines. One of them was a sharp Grunfeld line given in ECO as
equal by Karpov. He duly reached this position against his soviet
opponent, who won easily without using much time on his clock.
"Everyone in the Soviet Union knows that this position is lost" he
said. My friend didn't get a chance to use his opening preparaton in
his other games, so his total score came to 4.5/7, a 2450 performance
rating. Alas, he was soon lost to chess via job, family, etc.
> So patzers buy chess books and cram them hoping that rote learning
> some lines for only $19.95 is a winning strategy. I guess we all did
> it.
I was too lazy. I checked MCO out of the library and returned it
posthaste. I tended to browse Horowitz' "practical chess openings"
while watching TV.
My "students" were always keen on studying opening systems books,
saying usually "I just want to get to the middlegame without being
lost". A fine sentiment, but I tried to convince them that learning
opening principles would do the same, and apply to more positions.
But any chess study, aside possibly from memorizing variations, does
help, and some of these books give information on positional goals and
even characteristic endgames (e.g. Keene's "Flank openings" and his
various Pirc/Modern books with Botteril).
Maybe even memorization helps a little. A Serbian player told me of
the time the young Matulovich came to their club. He wasn't much of a
player then, but had memorized the standard opening books of the
day. You could open, say MCO8 and ask him what was on page 47 and he
would know it. though he did not understand it. And he did eventually
become a grandmaster.
William Hyde
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Dec 8, 3:12 am, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 5:21 pm, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:48:41 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> > > <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >To Andrew B: you are correct in his spelling of tabiya [mine was
> > > >phonetic if you happen to be a Catalonian]
>
> > > Phil evidently believes that tabiya is some sort of Spanish for
> > > "table". Well, the Arabs *did* control most of the Iberian Peninsula
> > > at one time, and it's not too big a stretch to find some overlap in
> > > meaning, but.... NAAAAA.
>
> > Giving him the benefit of the doubt - although why I would do that, I
> > don't know , given his other proclamations regarding foreign languages
>
> The only benefit of the doubt I can give Phil is that he may have
> been confusing "tabiya" with "tablas," the Spanish chess term for a
> draw.
Yet I mentioned Catalonian not Castilian Spanish, Taylor Kingston
please note, since Catalonian certainly ain't no Castlion Spanish
Kingston also does does not honor south American Spanish derived
dialects or patois to the point that he has never heard of them,
despite coming from southern California.
> > - I asked a friend of mine in Barcelona. It would be pronounced
> > exactly as spelled in Spanish, and if he is trying to make a claim
> > that it is Catalan or Catalonian, my friend assures me, as always,
> > Phil is FOS. No such word or no such pronounciation in Catalan.
>
> And in any event, "tabiya" is Arabic in origin.
In any event? Taylor has retrospectively looked at wikipedia and now
informs us in case I already confused people by phonetic memory of the
sound of the word, and as if it were some common word at all.
Bitch factor = 9/10 and besides, this is all the bloke can do these
days to respond to what is worth learning in chess, unless you want to
max out at an 1800 level like himself [ROFL] you get to be the clerk
to we people with actual skills and ideas.
I suppose I should say thanks.
Phil Innes
ChessFire
> On Dec 6, 1:41 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Never mind novelties, does anyone here know enough to feel confident
> > on either side of a straight Traxler?
>
> All I know about the opening is the name, which I generally confuse
> with a strategically important Dutch waterway.
It immediately enters insane regions:
1 e4 e5
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Bc4 Nf6
4 Ng5 Bc5 ?!?
[laugh] but laugh for how long?
5 Nf7 Bf2
and here is the play! Here is substantial complications which confuses
the best of computer analysis. Why not take the damn bishop?
Let's make a separate thread of this where we can all demonstrate our
collective incomprehension of a normative position after move 5!
Historically Tal played this against 10,000 Pravda readers 68/69; see
yearbook 67 comments by M. de Zeeuw. But apart this this spectacular
exhibition the position at move 6 is utterly wild. My initial point is
that if you can achieve this by move 6 these days or in 1967, then
that's something likely novel to 99.999% of players.
So what happens next? It is entirely fascinating if White plays Kf2,
whereas Ne4 7 Kg1 — and even Fritz needs help to draw with the White
bits... ;)
> > If you happen to be the stronger player [say 200+ points] then you
> > don't as much need opening novelties as much as gearing the game to
> > your own style of play. How many 1600 players are clueless in the
> > King's Gambit after 6 moves, eg?
>
> In most KG lines I'm out of book by move seven myself. And I play it,
> at least in speed chess.
Me too, though I have never had the opportunity in play to refute
Fischer, with b3...
The thing of it is Bill, that despite thousands upon thousands of
chess books, masters are all at sea at move 7 from this opening from
the C17th?
> Long ago I played the modern in a game with a 1300 player. I didn't
> know the line, he didn't know the line, yet later analysis showed we
> were still in book about move ten. He had, unusually, a pretty good
> grasp of opening principles, and I think went on to become a very much
> stronger player.
>
> Then there's the sad story of a game played by a friend of mine. He'd
> reached a 2300 rating with virtually no opening knowledge, but since
> he was playing for Canada in the student olympiad he booked up on a
> few lines. One of them was a sharp Grunfeld line given in ECO as
> equal by Karpov.
I played Yelena Dembo who has a new book on Grunfeld, I avoided that
opening — though I wonder if she anticipated your sharp line? Can I
find it for you. Things progress, she is 'only' an IM, an I wonder
what is out there now in public and would have puzzled Karpov at the
time.
> He duly reached this position against his soviet
> opponent, who won easily without using much time on his clock.
> "Everyone in the Soviet Union knows that this position is lost" he
> said. My friend didn't get a chance to use his opening preparaton in
> his other games, so his total score came to 4.5/7, a 2450 performance
> rating. Alas, he was soon lost to chess via job, family, etc.
Such fickle, brittle circumstance.
> > So patzers buy chess books and cram them hoping that rote learning
> > some lines for only $19.95 is a winning strategy. I guess we all did
> > it.
>
> I was too lazy. I checked MCO out of the library and returned it
> posthaste. I tended to browse Horowitz' "practical chess openings"
> while watching TV.
Laugh.
> My "students" were always keen on studying opening systems books,
> saying usually "I just want to get to the middlegame without being
> lost". A fine sentiment, but I tried to convince them that learning
> opening principles would do the same, and apply to more positions.
In Germany before the wall came down I still understood strong player
opinion of how to get going without getting slaughtered. They
[Germans] admitted two things; not playing the openings correctly
until you arrived at the middle game beyond your comprehension, and
secondly that in the East they were better at such appreciations and
that is why they dominated.
> But any chess study, aside possibly from memorizing variations, does
> help, and some of these books give information on positional goals and
> even characteristic endgames (e.g. Keene's "Flank openings" and his
> various Pirc/Modern books with Botteril).
And his appreciation of Miles' play with black, eg. several lines
never refuted, he reports.
> Maybe even memorization helps a little. A Serbian player told me of
> the time the young Matulovich came to their club. He wasn't much of a
> player then, but had memorized the standard opening books of the
> day. You could open, say MCO8 and ask him what was on page 47 and he
> would know it. though he did not understand it. And he did eventually
> become a grandmaster.
That is a more complex issue than we initially addressed here, though
in saying so, I do not doubt what you say, it is a large parenthesis
and I initially chose another. Shall we shift to a Traxler thread and
see what?
Cordially,
> William Hyde
William Hyde
> On Dec 9, 3:06 pm, William Hyde <wthyde1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[the traxler]
>
> It immediately enters insane regions:
[...]
>
> and here is the play! Here is substantial complications which confuses
> the best of computer analysis. Why not take the damn bishop?
Ah, that (does it have another name?). When I face a devotee I always
avoid such lines. To play them is like giving odds if they're booked
up.
> Let's make a separate thread of this where we can all demonstrate our
> collective incomprehension of a normative position after move 5!
I truly have no idea what is going on there. I might investigate it
out of interest in the position, but I'd never play it outside of
speed chess.
> > In most KG lines I'm out of book by move seven myself. And I play it,
> > at least in speed chess.
>
> Me too, though I have never had the opportunity in play to refute
> Fischer, with b3...
>
> The thing of it is Bill, that despite thousands upon thousands of
> chess books, masters are all at sea at move 7 from this opening from
> the C17th?
An international player has to cut down on his or her workload. One
line against the KG is enough given how seldom it is seen. I used to
play the Falkbeer on those very rare occasions when I met the KG (even
rarer as I almost never play 1 ...e5). I knew a few Falkbeer lines
out to move 8 or so. I had some anxious moments in a tournament game
when we went off into the unknown, but it all worked out. OTOH nobody
stronger than I has ever played the KG against me. My Falkbeer might
not have fared so well then.
The first draw I ever got against a master (at speed chess, of course)
came when I had for once learned a line. We followed a main line
Nimzo to move 23, a line I had memorized from Horowitz (while watching
some talk show on TV, of course!). He made an erronious
transposition somewhere, but I hadn't learned the refutation of it,
only that it was wrong! Still, with five minutes on my clock compared
to two and a half on his, I was able to hold the game.
The second draw, though, came when I blundered a pawn and got great
compensation for it. And that was a lot more fun than the earlier
game.
>
> > Then there's the sad story of a game played by a friend of mine. He'd
> > reached a 2300 rating with virtually no opening knowledge, but since
> > he was playing for Canada in the student olympiad he booked up on a
> > few lines. One of them was a sharp Grunfeld line given in ECO as
> > equal by Karpov.
>
> I played Yelena Dembo who has a new book on Grunfeld, I avoided that
> opening — though I wonder if she anticipated your sharp line? Can I
> find it for you.
Oh, this was in the mid 1980s. Probably not topical at all any more.
Things progress, she is 'only' an IM, an I wonder
> what is out there now in public and would have puzzled Karpov at the
> time.
We have never solved the mystery of Karpov's "=". He must have known
that the line was refuted. Possibly a typo.
> > But any chess study, aside possibly from memorizing variations, does
> > help, and some of these books give information on positional goals and
> > even characteristic endgames (e.g. Keene's "Flank openings" and his
> > various Pirc/Modern books with Botteril).
>
> And his appreciation of Miles' play with black, eg. several lines
> never refuted, he reports.
Is there a good book of Miles' games?
>
> That is a more complex issue than we initially addressed here, though
> in saying so, I do not doubt what you say,
Well, the Matulovich anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I was not
there, though I believe my source was (and alas, it is too late to ask
him). So it is in the realm of "might be true". It somewhat fits
with Tal's story of M decling to trade rooks into a drawn K&P endgame
because "I have not studied king and pawn endgames yet". And this was
when he was an international player.
it is a large parenthesis
> and I initially chose another. Shall we shift to a Traxler thread and
> see what?
You propose a chess thread on a chess newsgroup? Well, it does have
the advantage of novelty. I hope it does not drown out the politics
threads, delicate flowers that they are.
William Hyde
raylopez99
>
> Well, the Matulovich anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I was not
> there, though I believe my source was (and alas, it is too late to ask
> him). So it is in the realm of "might be true".
There's a lot of stories about this Yugoslavian player. Wasn't he ill-
tempered, a bad sport and/or convicted of murder? But I may be
confusing him with somebody else who was a strong chess player from
that country.
RL
Taylor Kingston
He's (in)famous for an incident at the 1967 Interzonal. He made a
move against Bilek, clearly taking his hand off the piece. It turned
out the move was a blunder. Matulovic noticed this as soon as he had
let go of the piece, said "J'adoube" and took the move back, and made
another. Bilek apparently was too nonplussed to register a protest.
The new move was not a blunder, and Matulovic managed to draw the
game. Thereafter he was derisively known as "J'adoubovic."
Another infamous incident was when he took a bribe to take a dive
against Taimanov in the 1970 Interzonal, so that Taimanov, a Russian,
would qualify for the Candidates Matches rather than a non-Russian.
Page 258 of GM Hans Ree's book "The Human Comedy of Chess" details
other bits of his cheating, such as resetting the clock while his
opponent was away from the board. (He got caught that time, and was
forfeited.)
He was not well-liked; Divinsky's encylopedia says he was noted "for
his extravagant and sometimes anti-social behavior." Still, he was a
strong GM, rated about 2550 at his peak, and played 8th board in the
USSR vs. the Rest of the World team match in 1970, scoring a
creditable +0 -1 =3 against Botvinnik when some of his teammates
thought he might go 0-4.
Here's the game in which he took a move back. I have not been able
to find contemporary reports, so I don't know where the take-back
occurred, or what the bad move was. Anybody here know?
[Event "Sousse Interzonal"]
[Site "Sousse"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Matulovic, Milan"]
[Black "Bilek, Istvan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B33"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "1967.10.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "21"]
[EventCountry "TUN"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 h6 7. b3
Bc5 8. Nd6+ Ke7 9. Nf5+ Kf8 10. Bc4 Bb4 11. Bd2 Qa5 12. Qf3 d5 13.
exd5 Nd4 14. Nxd4 exd4 15. Nb1 Bxd2+ 16. Nxd2 Bg4 17. Qf4 Re8+ 18. Kf1
Qc3 19. Rb1 Qxc2 20. f3 Bf5 21. Qxd4 Qxa2 22. Ra1 Bd3+ 23. Bxd3 Qxd2
24. Qc5+ Kg8 25. Bc4 g6 26. Qf2 Qc3 27. Rd1 b5 28. Be2 Re3 29. g3 Kg7
30. Kg2 a6 31. d6 Rhe8 32. Rhe1 Nd7 33. f4 Qb4 34. f5 g5 35. f6+ Kg8
36. h3 Qc3 37. Kf1 Qc6 38. Kg1 Qe4 39. Rd2 Re6 40. h4 Rxf6 41. Qg2
Qxg2+ 42. Kxg2 Rfe6 43. hxg5 hxg5 44. b4 R3e4 45. Kf1 Rf6+ 46. Kg2
Rfe6 47. Kf1 Rf6+ 48. Kg2 Rfe6 49. Kf1 Rf6+ 50. Kg1 Rfe6 1/2-1/2
And here's the game where he took a dive. I believe some of the
evidence for this charge is based on his behavior during the game,
rather than any particular move:
[Event "Palma de Mallorca Interzonal"]
[Site "Palma de Mallorca"]
[Date "1970.12.12"]
[Round "23"]
[White "Taimanov, Mark E"]
[Black "Matulovic, Milan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D25"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1970.11.09"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "23"]
[EventCountry "ESP"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bg4 5. Bxc4 e6 6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. h3
Bh5 8. O-O Bd6 9. e4 e5 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Be2 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Nxf3+ 13.
Qxf3 Qe7 14. Bf4 Be5 15. Bxe5 Qxe5 16. Qe3 O-O 17. f4 Qe7 18. e5 c6
19. Rfe1 Rfe8 20. Qf3 Qc5+ 21. Qf2 Qxf2+ 22. Kxf2 Nd5 23. Nxd5 cxd5
24. Red1 Red8 25. Rac1 Rd7 26. Ke3 Rad8 27. Kd4 Kf8 28. f5 Ke7 29. Rd3
Re8 30. Rdc3 b6 31. Rc7 Red8 32. R1c6 Ke8 33. g4 h6 34. h4 Rb8 35. g5
hxg5 36. hxg5 Rb7 37. Rc8+ Rd8 38. Rxd8+ Kxd8 39. Kxd5 a5 40. Rd6+ Ke8
41. Kc6 Re7 42. Rd5 1-0
Andrew B.
wrote:
> On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 9:46 pm, William Hyde <wthyde1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, the Matulovich anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I was not
> > > there, though I believe my source was (and alas, it is too late to ask
> > > him). So it is in the realm of "might be true".
>
> > There's a lot of stories about this Yugoslavian player. Wasn't he ill-
> > tempered, a bad sport and/or convicted of murder?
He was apparently convicted of vehicular manslaughter.
> Here's the game in which he took a move back. I have not been able
> to find contemporary reports, so I don't know where the take-back
> occurred, or what the bad move was. Anybody here know?
According to a comment at chessgames.com, it was 38.Bf3.
Taylor Kingston
> On Dec 11, 10:39 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 9:46 pm, William Hyde <wthyde1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, the Matulovich anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I was not
> > > > there, though I believe my source was (and alas, it is too late to ask
> > > > him). So it is in the realm of "might be true".
>
> > > There's a lot of stories about this Yugoslavian player. Wasn't he ill-
> > > tempered, a bad sport and/or convicted of murder?
>
> He was apparently convicted of vehicular manslaughter.
No kidding? I had not heard about that.
> > Here's the game in which he took a move back. I have not been able
> > to find contemporary reports, so I don't know where the take-back
> > occurred, or what the bad move was. Anybody here know?
>
> According to a comment at chessgames.com, it was 38.Bf3.
Thanks much, Andrew. Yep, that would have done it. Just puts the B
en prise. Even so, Matulovic was lucky to draw. Though 40...Rxf6 was
still good enough, 40...gxh4 would have been crushing, and instead of
41...Qxg2?, which gave away most of Black's advantage, Bilek could
have won easily with 41...Qe5. I suppose Zeitnot was involved.
William Hyde
>
>
>
> > Well, the Matulovich anecdote is just that, an anecdote. I was not
> > there, though I believe my source was (and alas, it is too late to ask
> > him). So it is in the realm of "might be true".
>
> There's a lot of stories about this Yugoslavian player. Wasn't he ill-
> tempered, a bad sport and/or convicted of murder?
He was conviced of "vehicular homicide", which in this case means, I
think, operating a vehicle badly enough to kill someone, but without
having intended to do so.
He was sentenced to three years, and you could read the whole
disastrous future of Yugoslavia in his complaint: "That's too much, it
was only a Bosnian".
William Hyde
Taylor Kingston
>
> He was conviced of "vehicular homicide", which in this case means, I
> think, operating a vehicle badly enough to kill someone, but without
> having intended to do so.
>
> He was sentenced to three years, and you could read the whole
> disastrous future of Yugoslavia in his complaint: "That's too much, it
> was only a Bosnian".
We had a couple of Bosnians at the Burlington club back in the late
1990s. One Christian, one Muslim. Both were nice, inoffensive guys,
and pretty good players. Also a Jew from Moldova, who was about
2100-2300 strength. All three had fled from the sort of civil
disruption, even genocide, we can hardly imagine from the relative
safety of the USA.
Never any obvious problems between them, or with several other east
European or west Asian emigres who attended the club — Russian,
Georgian, Armenian, maybe a few other nationalities — though once I
did witness one hint of old deep-seated animosity stirring just below
the surface. One night at the mention of a Bosnian's name, the
Armenian said "Hmmph. Lulic, he is a Muslim" like a Klansman might say
the N-word.
A lot remains to be unlearned before many other states besides
Yugoslavia experience "disastrous futures."
William Hyde
wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:51 pm, William Hyde <wthyde1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > He was conviced of "vehicular homicide", which in this case means, I
> > think, operating a vehicle badly enough to kill someone, but without
> > having intended to do so.
>
> > He was sentenced to three years, and you could read the whole
> > disastrous future of Yugoslavia in his complaint: "That's too much, it
> > was only a Bosnian".
>
> We had a couple of Bosnians at the Burlington club back in the late
> 1990s. One Christian, one Muslim.
In the terminology Matulovich was using, only the Muslim was a
"Bosnian". Orthodox inhabitants of Bosnia were always considered
(even by themselves) Serbs, Catholics Croats. This was culturally true
but ancestrally nonsense, as they were mostly descended from the
Bosnians (Bosnia was a separate state for centuries, neither Catholic
nor Orthodox).
Both were nice, inoffensive guys,
> and pretty good players. Also a Jew from Moldova, who was about
> 2100-2300 strength. All three had fled from the sort of civil
> disruption, even genocide, we can hardly imagine from the relative
> safety of the USA.
> Never any obvious problems between them,
I had a very different experience An argument would break out over
some chess issue (generally whether a flag had fallen before mate was
given), would grow louder, then switch into a foreign language (or
two), but not before some hard-to-grasp comments were made in
English. Comments which I only understand in retrospect. This was in
the 1970s.
A good friend of mine, one of the most decent men I had ever met, was
of, shall we say, group X, and had a wildly wrong view of the history
of Y, purely because of the propaganda he was exposed to in school.
Millions beleive the same.
or with several other east
> European or west Asian emigres who attended the club — Russian,
> Georgian,
I was in the same physics department as a cousin of an expatriate
Georgian GM. From a few things he said, it was easy to understand why
they were both in North America.
William Hyde