Diversionary tactics?

Date: 05 Sep 2008 09:33:48
From: John Salerno
Subject: Diversionary tactics?

This thought occurred to me today as I was thinking about random stuff. I
haven't seen a mention of anything like it in the four books I've read so
far, so maybe it doesn't exist (and with good reason). But is there such a
thing as a "diversionary move" where you might play a move on one side of
the board, meanwhile your main plan is taking place elsewhere? Would this be
considered a loss of a tempo unless maybe that particular move also had an
idea behind it that could be pursued if need be? Is it just better to focus
on a single plan at any given time?

Thanks.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 08:17:31
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

Date: 05 Sep 2008 14:18:25
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 2:36=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:504949be-2929-4fba-9514-755931a31fc8@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Littlewood in How to Play the Middlegame in Chess (algebraic notation)
>
> Ooh, that title sounds great!
>
> > The Littlewood book would be well worth your while.
>
> Then you recommend it? Because I think it's the middle game that most
> interests me, and yet it's where I feel least confident because it's wher=
e
> you really start to open up your game and develop a strategy.

Yes, without hesitation. I'll buy it from you if you don't agree it's
a great book. It includes, for example, one of those "How to Use This
Book" Sections that I think are imperative for any book to be a good
teaching book.

It's only drawback is the lack of a subject matter index.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 14:13:03
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 2:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2:52=A0pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 1:25=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 In chess literature, this sort of tactic is usually called
> > > deflection, rather than diversion.
>
> > It would be great to see examples of this (especially clearly
> > contrasting ones) if you have them.
>
> =A0 One example would be "Mitrofanov's Deflection" by Victor Charushin
> (1998). I reviewed it for chesscafe.com here:
>
> =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mitro.txt
>
> =A0 Another instance is Spielmann's "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess."
> Pages 113-117 discuss what he calls "Deflecting or Decoy Sacrifices."

Thanks Taylor. I know both sources. I'd not been able to secure a copy
of Charushin yet.

I am not sure the terminology is always that clear, and I am
particularly looking forward to finally getting a copy of Spielmann in
German to see what things are called in the original text. That is on
my 2009 book list.

What I find particularly amusing at the start of my search is that
Spielmann indicates that problemists have long spelled out what all
these various sacrifices are - yet when you ask problemists, you get
all sorts of different answers, some of it due of course to language.

Classifying sacrifices by type/name etc. is a retirement project of
mine, one I probably never will complete. But it is quite a bit of fun.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 12:10:26
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 2:52=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 1:25=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 In chess literature, this sort of tactic is usually called
> > deflection, rather than diversion.
>
> It would be great to see examples of this (especially clearly
> contrasting ones) if you have them.

One example would be "Mitrofanov's Deflection" by Victor Charushin
(1998). I reviewed it for chesscafe.com here:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mitro.txt

Another instance is Spielmann's "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess."
Pages 113-117 discuss what he calls "Deflecting or Decoy Sacrifices."

Date: 05 Sep 2008 12:04:44
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

Littlewood in How to Play the Middlegame in Chess (algebraic notation)
gives the following in his chapter entitled "Problem Themes" as
stemming from a game won by Duras:

2k1q3/p2r1p2/P7/Q6B/8/Kp2r3/8/6R1 w - - 0 1

Ka3 Qa5 Rg1 Bh5 Pa6
Kc8 Qe8 Rd7 Re3 Pa7 Pb3 f7

Looks staged, but may be an actual game

1. Rc1+ Kb8 2. Qb4+ Ka8

and now the double deflection begins 3. Bf3+! and 4. Qe4+!, leading to
mate.

The Littlewood book would be well worth your while.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 15:36:10
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:504949be-2929-4fba-9514-755931a31fc8@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Littlewood in How to Play the Middlegame in Chess (algebraic notation)

Ooh, that title sounds great!

> The Littlewood book would be well worth your while.

Then you recommend it? Because I think it's the middle game that most
interests me, and yet it's where I feel least confident because it's where
you really start to open up your game and develop a strategy.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 11:52:51
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 1:25=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 In chess literature, this sort of tactic is usually called
> deflection, rather than diversion.

It would be great to see examples of this (especially clearly
contrasting ones) if you have them.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 11:25:44
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 11:58=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 5, 9:33 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ---
> =A0 A very simple example of diversion would be a situation where White
> has pawns at a2 and h2, his king at e1, and the black king is at e8.
> With only one of these pawns, White would not be able to win. But with
> the two, he can force the black king to divert to one wing or another
> to capture one of the pawns, then advance the other to queen.
> ---
>
> When I used the word "diversion" I had something sneakier in mind than th=
is.
> Of course, since this idea apparently does exist, I could be using it
> incorrectly. It's definitely a good strategy to divert the king to one pa=
wn
> and then the other one queens (probably necessary to do so), but I was
> thinking more along the lines of the middlegame, and not something so
> simple. I was thinking what if you actually moved a piece to attack, for
> example, forcing the opponent to defend (feeling as if he's about to be
> bombarded, perhaps), but then it turns out that that move really had noth=
ing
> to do with your attack except to get the opponent to move his own pieces
> away from the real target.
>
> In Wolff's book (which is actually pretty fantastic, by the way), he does
> mention a strategy of leading the defender of a square away from that squ=
are
> so you can occupy it (I forget what he calls this move, maybe even
> "diversion"!), but again, I was thinking of something grander in mind tha=
n
> this. And of course my idea is probably much more likely to fail! :)

Perhaps this is an example with the sort of sophistication you had
in mind? In a famous game, Zukertort-Blackburne, London 1883, the
position after Black's 27th move was:

W: Kg1, Qd2, Rf1, Re3, Bb2, pawns a2, b3, d5, g2, h2, h7
B: Kh8, Qe7, Rc8, Rc2, Bb7, pawns a7, b6, e4, e5

White then uncorked 28.Qb4!!, putting his queen en prise. The main
point is that if 28...Qxb4, the black queen is diverted from the
crucial task of defending the e5-pawn, and White can play 29.Bxe5+
Kxh7 30.Rh3+ Kg6 31.Rg3+ Kh7 32.Rf7+ Kh6 33.Bf4+ Kh5 34.Rh7#.
The game actually concluded 28...R8c5 29.Rf8+ Kxh7 -- If 29...Qxf8
30.Bxe5+ Kxh7 31.Qxe4+ etc. -- 30.Qxe4+ Kg7 31.Bxe5+ Kxf8 32.Bg7+
1-0.

In chess literature, this sort of tactic is usually called
deflection, rather than diversion.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 15:35:03
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a03f9921-2312-4b18-aa1d-24b26e7f4661@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

In chess literature, this sort of tactic is usually called
deflection, rather than diversion.
---
Ah yes, that was the word!

Date: 05 Sep 2008 11:58:53
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 5, 9:33 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

---
A very simple example of diversion would be a situation where White
has pawns at a2 and h2, his king at e1, and the black king is at e8.
With only one of these pawns, White would not be able to win. But with
the two, he can force the black king to divert to one wing or another
to capture one of the pawns, then advance the other to queen.
---

When I used the word "diversion" I had something sneakier in mind than this.
Of course, since this idea apparently does exist, I could be using it
incorrectly. It's definitely a good strategy to divert the king to one pawn
and then the other one queens (probably necessary to do so), but I was
thinking more along the lines of the middlegame, and not something so
simple. I was thinking what if you actually moved a piece to attack, for
example, forcing the opponent to defend (feeling as if he's about to be
bombarded, perhaps), but then it turns out that that move really had nothing
to do with your attack except to get the opponent to move his own pieces
away from the real target.

In Wolff's book (which is actually pretty fantastic, by the way), he does
mention a strategy of leading the defender of a square away from that square
so you can occupy it (I forget what he calls this move, maybe even
"diversion"!), but again, I was thinking of something grander in mind than
this. And of course my idea is probably much more likely to fail! :)

Date: 05 Sep 2008 07:57:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 9:33=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> This thought occurred to me today as I was thinking about random stuff. I
> haven't seen a mention of anything like it in the four books I've read so
> far, so maybe it doesn't exist (and with good reason). But is there such =
a
> thing as a "diversionary move" where you might play a move on one side of
> the board, meanwhile your main plan is taking place elsewhere? Would this=
be
> considered a loss of a tempo unless maybe that particular move also had a=
n
> idea behind it that could be pursued if need be? Is it just better to foc=
us
> on a single plan at any given time?

This sounds as if it might be a useful strategy
in cases where the opponent is in time pressure,
but otherwise, perhaps just a waste of time.

One of the advantages of modern openings is
that dull symmetry is often (though not always)
avoided. As such, it often happens that the two
players are attacking on opposite sides of the
board. In this type of situation, there are two
things to keep in mind:

1) quickness, or the speed at which your
plan will strike pay-dirt; and

2) effectiveness, or what is the payoff if your
plan comes to fruition?

A beautiful example of this was found in a
game in which Boris Spassky had White in
a King's Indian Defense, and although his
opponent managed a takeover of the whole
Queen's side of the board, Mr. Spassky's
direct assault on the enemy King prevailed.
In this sort of game, accuracy and
efficiency combine in a sort of "race" to
decide which player's plan will prevail. The
strategy of diversion can be seen as
useless, irrelevant.

In many games the theme of "diversion"
applies to the diversion of a defender of
some key man or square. But in the
sense you mean-- that of distracting the
opponent from the real focus of your play,
I think the idea falls down. Assuming your
plan is sound, there should be no need for
any such distractions; indeed, they may
just as well distract *you* as your
opponent.

On the other hand, there is an idea
which may relate somewhat to your idea,
and that is the idea that in many cases
a single weakness can successfully be
defended; in these cases it may be
necessary to create two weaknesses, in
two different parts of the board. Then you
attack one to divert enemy defenders
from the other, switching the attack in
such a way that your attackers get from
target-A to target-B quicker than the
defenders can, or perhaps the opponent
gets confused and does not foresee this
possibility.

-- help bot

Date: 05 Sep 2008 07:52:26
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 8:33=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This thought occurred to me today as I was thinking about random stuff. I
> haven't seen a mention of anything like it in the four books I've read so
> far, so maybe it doesn't exist (and with good reason). But is there such =
a
> thing as a "diversionary move" where you might play a move on one side of
> the board, meanwhile your main plan is taking place elsewhere? Would this=
be
> considered a loss of a tempo unless maybe that particular move also had a=
n
> idea behind it that could be pursued if need be? Is it just better to foc=
us
> on a single plan at any given time?
>
> Thanks.

Deflection/decoy/diversionary moves and sacrifices are well-known in
chess.

Levy, "Play Chess Combinations and Sacrifices"

"Quite often we have an idea that cannot be put into practice because
of the position of one of our opponent's pieces. But there are
sometimes ways of decoying that enemy piece....."

Most often this is used in king-side attacks but Alekhine (one of
those "old guys" helpbot told you to avoid) used to excel in attacks
on both sides of the board. This would of course confuse and exhaust
his opponent.

At first a single plan is what you need but you will find that often,
you can pile on and pile on and pile on but since your opponent can
protect and protect and protect you will find that multiple plans are
often necessary to win. There is often a result of that overprotection
a weakness somewhere else.

Date: 06 Sep 2008 14:37:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 4:49=A0pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:

> The match we really missed in the 1970s: a sober & healthy Tal vs. a
> sane Fischer.

Sober and healthy, Tal might not be Tal,
and sane, Fischer could not be Fischer.

-- help bot

Date: 06 Sep 2008 14:34:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 4:45=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > =A0 Note carefully the /surgical insertion/ of a new
> > word: "lifetime".

> =A0 What else did you think it meant? Fischer's record the first day he
> learned the rules? Good grief (said while shaking head in
> incredulity).

I must admit, I do prefer this comprehensible
form of dishonest discourse of Mr. Kingston's
to, say, the idiocy of a Dr. IMnes.

I think most everyone here knows that what
we had been discussing was not "lifetime
records", but rather, the period which directly
preceded the cycle in which Bobby Fischer
prevailed to become FIDE champion. That
was evident from the fact that nearly-an-IM
Innes "quoted" -- if that is quite the word --
Mr. Taimanov in support of BF over Mr.
Larsen, whereupon another poster jumped
in with a quote in support of Mr. Larsen.

Now, the desire, the /emotional need/ to
switch from a discussion of perceptions at
that time to a mathematical exercise in
addition tells us something about Mr.
Kingston's current state of mind. I might
add that my original comment noted that
some of the top Russian players had an
*even score* against Mr. Fischer, and it
appears this part has been "surgically
removed" by Dr. Kingston as well,
leaving only that part which he finds
convenient to his own whims. (Why am
I not surprised?)

-- help bot

Date: 06 Sep 2008 13:55:08
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 4:49=A0pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 9:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Yes, Tal went +47 =3D39 -0 in 86 games played July 1972 to April
> > 1973.
>
> > =A0 Trivia question: Who has since come closest to breaking Tal's
> > record?

> Wouldn't that be Tal himself, circa 1979? =A0But he flamed out vs.
> Polugaevsky in the Candidates.

No, according to Andy Soltis' "Chess Lists" (2nd edition, 2002) it
was John Nunn, who went 85 games without loss in 1980-81.

> The match we really missed in the 1970s: a sober & healthy Tal vs. a
> sane Fischer.

Woulda been nice.

Date: 06 Sep 2008 13:49:38
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 9:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 6, 9:49=A0am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 3:33=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know too much about the big names yet (just who they are a li=
ttle
> > > bio info), but I like some of the stuff I've seen Tal do. He seems pr=
etty
> > > creative and brilliant with his moves.
>
> > =A0 It is an interesting fact that, while here in the
> > USA Bobby Fischer got all the press coverage,
> > at the same time (more or less) that BF made
> > his run at the FIDE title, Mr. Tal was setting a
> > world record for (master) games played in a
> > row without a loss. =A0
>
> =A0 Yes, Tal went +47 =3D39 -0 in 86 games played July 1972 to April
> 1973.
>
> =A0 Trivia question: Who has since come closest to breaking Tal's
> record?
>
> > Formerly, this kind of
> > achievement was the dominion of such "dull"
> > players as Mr. Petrosian or Mr. Capablanca,
> > that latter of which was fairly inactive.
>
> =A0 I'm not sure if Petrosian ever had a major unbeaten streak, though
> it seems likely he would have. Capablanca went undefeated over a
> period of 8 years 40 days, 1916-24, scoring +43 =3D20 -0 until R=E9ti bea=
t
> him in a famous game at New York 1924.
>
> > =A0 Here in rgc, there are more than a few who
> > are fanatical Bobby Fischer fans, who quite
> > literally /obsess/ over him despite his
> > disappearance from active play in 1972. =A0I
> > like to press their buttons by pointing out the
> > fact that Mr. Fischer once was "spanked"
> > like a child by Mr. Tal-- who himself was just
> > a relative youngster at the time.
>
> =A0 Yes, Tal scored 4-0 vs. Fischer in the 1959 Candidates Tournament,
> when Tal was 22 and Fischer 16. However, that was the last time Tal
> ever beat Fischer in serious play. In their remaining 6 games 1959-62
> Fischer scored +2 =3D4.
> =A0 Among the top GMs of the Fischer era, only Tal and Geller had
> winning records against Fischer.
>
> > =A0 Indeed, it often happens that I stumble
> > across sweeping claims regarding the great
> > American hero, which are ludicrous when
> > put to the test against many of his famous
> > predecessors, including Mr. Tal, but even
> > going back as far as another great
> > American chess player, Paul Morphy.
>
> > =A0 One last button-press: Dr. IMnes has even
> > gone so far as to try and persuade readers
> > that BF was a great chess openings
> > innovator of sorts, relying on the rebadging
> > of others' ideas which resulted from the
> > stronger player's greater success. =A0From my
> > perspective, this is ludicrous; we have plenty
> > of real openings innovators, and there is no
> > need to try and invent phony ones.
>
> > =A0 -- help bot

Wouldn't that be Tal himself, circa 1979? But he flamed out vs.
Polugaevsky in the Candidates.

The match we really missed in the 1970s: a sober & healthy Tal vs. a
sane Fischer.

Date: 07 Sep 2008 09:43:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

"billbrock" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > One last button-press: Dr. IMnes has even

poor Greg refers to his own button in this case, the F-Word button, being
Fischer ;(

> > gone so far as to try and persuade readers
> > that BF was a great chess openings
> > innovator of sorts, relying on the rebadging
> > of others' ideas which resulted from the
> > stronger player's greater success.

I can see why I am not quoted. Its almost correct, but not "strongest
player's successes". Isn't it common knowledge that Fischer obtained Russian
chess periodicals from the regions?

I can't imagine that he needed that for top player's games which were
[relatively] accessible - but in order to look at innovative tries in the
opening by less famous players.

> > From my
> > perspective, this is ludicrous; we have plenty
> > of real openings innovators, and there is no
> > need to try and invent phony ones.

Phoney? Didn't I write here just a few weeks ago on the evolution of the
KID? Those were not from first-tier GMs, or even from GMs at all, but from
Russian masters too, the knowledge of whose innovative work was smothered by
WWII.

Phil Innes

> > -- help bot

Wouldn't that be Tal himself, circa 1979? But he flamed out vs.
Polugaevsky in the Candidates.

The match we really missed in the 1970s: a sober & healthy Tal vs. a
sane Fischer.

Date: 06 Sep 2008 13:45:35
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 4:10=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 THE =A0KINGSTON =A0SAGA
>
> =A0 "Long-time Evans watchers will note that it
> is the kind of fundamental dishonesty that is
> endemic to him." =A0(A paraphrasing, from
> imperfect memory on my part.)
>
> =A0 Thus begins a tale of, no, not Mr. Evans,
> but rather his sometime antagonist, Mr.
> Kingston.
>
> > > > =A0 Among the top GMs of the Fischer era, only Tal and Geller had
> > > > winning records against Fischer.
> > > =A0 As I said, wild, sweeping claims appear,
> > > often seemingly from out of nowhere. =A0
> > =A0 This is hardly a "wild, sweeping claim." It's a plain fact. If you
> > disagree, you need merely tell us who else among the top GMs of the
> > Fischer era had lifetime winning records against him.
>
> =A0 Note carefully the /surgical insertion/ of a new
> word: "lifetime".

What else did you think it meant? Fischer's record the first day he
learned the rules? Good grief (said while shaking head in
incredulity).

Date: 06 Sep 2008 13:10:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

THE KINGSTON SAGA

"Long-time Evans watchers will note that it
is the kind of fundamental dishonesty that is
endemic to him." (A paraphrasing, from
imperfect memory on my part.)

Thus begins a tale of, no, not Mr. Evans,
but rather his sometime antagonist, Mr.
Kingston.

> > > =A0 Among the top GMs of the Fischer era, only Tal and Geller had
> > > winning records against Fischer.

> > =A0 As I said, wild, sweeping claims appear,
> > often seemingly from out of nowhere. =A0

> =A0 This is hardly a "wild, sweeping claim." It's a plain fact. If you
> disagree, you need merely tell us who else among the top GMs of the
> Fischer era had lifetime winning records against him.

Note carefully the /surgical insertion/ of a new
word: "lifetime".

-- help bot

Date: 06 Sep 2008 09:04:04
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 11:40=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Yes, Tal scored 4-0 vs. Fischer in the 1959 Candidates Tournament,
> > when Tal was 22 and Fischer 16. However, that was the last time Tal
> > ever beat Fischer in serious play. In their remaining 6 games 1959-62
> > Fischer scored +2 =3D4.
>
> =A0 This is a testament to the separation of BF
> from the Soviets, who were of course the
> world's best chess players overall. =A0It also
> reflects the sudden, dramatic falloff in Mr.
> Tal's strength, which seems related to his
> kidney problems, even if he ultimately
> managed to stage a comeback nearly a
> decade later.
>
> > =A0 Among the top GMs of the Fischer era, only Tal and Geller had
> > winning records against Fischer.
>
> =A0 As I said, wild, sweeping claims appear,
> often seemingly from out of nowhere. =A0

This is hardly a "wild, sweeping claim." It's a plain fact. If you
disagree, you need merely tell us who else among the top GMs of the
Fischer era had lifetime winning records against him.

> In
> reality, until their match in 1972, Boris
> Spassky had a very impressive record
> against Mr. Fischer,

Yes, through 1970 Spassky had a +3 =3D2 record vs. Fischer. However, I
have been referring to full lifetime records, not to an arbitrarily
defined lesser period of time. The full record ended up +17 -10 =3D28 in
FIscher's favor.

> and on that basis
> alone many of the claims of Fischer
> fanatics are made to look ridiculous.

It's not at all clear to whom help-bot is referring. I know of no
one, whether pro- or anti-Fischer, who would deny that Spassky had the
better of it up to 1972, or what "many claims" are "made ridiculous"
by this fact.

Date: 06 Sep 2008 08:40:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 Yes, Tal scored 4-0 vs. Fischer in the 1959 Candidates Tournament,
> when Tal was 22 and Fischer 16. However, that was the last time Tal
> ever beat Fischer in serious play. In their remaining 6 games 1959-62
> Fischer scored +2 =3D4.

This is a testament to the separation of BF
from the Soviets, who were of course the
world's best chess players overall. It also
reflects the sudden, dramatic falloff in Mr.
Tal's strength, which seems related to his
kidney problems, even if he ultimately
managed to stage a comeback nearly a
decade later.

> =A0 Among the top GMs of the Fischer era, only Tal and Geller had
> winning records against Fischer.

As I said, wild, sweeping claims appear,
often seemingly from out of nowhere. In
reality, until their match in 1972, Boris
Spassky had a very impressive record
against Mr. Fischer, and on that basis
alone many of the claims of Fischer
fanatics are made to look ridiculous.

I want to jump forward in time here, to
the era of Gary Kasparov-- a man who
truly dominated chess in a way that BF
fanatics can only /dream about/. Now
here was a man who had trouble with
just one opponent, if only in matches
(not so much in tournament play). Had
there been a "Boris Spassky" who was
thumping him regularly during his hey-
day, I really don't think people would
have claimed GK "dominated" chess.
Yet with Bobby Fischer, nothing can
stop these fanatics from plying their
trade.

Another fellow who springs to mind is
Paul Morphy. Here was a man (boy?)
who also retired at his peak, thereby
destroying any possibility of his god-
like reputation in chess to later be
shattered due to old age, or any loss
of form. The early-retirement trick
certainly has its advantages, and it
doesn't hurt to have a fan base that
includes irrationals among its numbers.

-- help bot

Date: 06 Sep 2008 07:10:29
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 6, 9:49=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 3:33=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know too much about the big names yet (just who they are a litt=
le
> > bio info), but I like some of the stuff I've seen Tal do. He seems pret=
ty
> > creative and brilliant with his moves.
>
> =A0 It is an interesting fact that, while here in the
> USA Bobby Fischer got all the press coverage,
> at the same time (more or less) that BF made
> his run at the FIDE title, Mr. Tal was setting a
> world record for (master) games played in a
> row without a loss. =A0

Yes, Tal went +47 =3D39 -0 in 86 games played July 1972 to April
1973.

Trivia question: Who has since come closest to breaking Tal's
record?

> Formerly, this kind of
> achievement was the dominion of such "dull"
> players as Mr. Petrosian or Mr. Capablanca,
> that latter of which was fairly inactive.

I'm not sure if Petrosian ever had a major unbeaten streak, though
it seems likely he would have. Capablanca went undefeated over a
period of 8 years 40 days, 1916-24, scoring +43 =3D20 -0 until R=E9ti beat
him in a famous game at New York 1924.

> =A0 Here in rgc, there are more than a few who
> are fanatical Bobby Fischer fans, who quite
> literally /obsess/ over him despite his
> disappearance from active play in 1972. =A0I
> like to press their buttons by pointing out the
> fact that Mr. Fischer once was "spanked"
> like a child by Mr. Tal-- who himself was just
> a relative youngster at the time.

Yes, Tal scored 4-0 vs. Fischer in the 1959 Candidates Tournament,
when Tal was 22 and Fischer 16. However, that was the last time Tal
ever beat Fischer in serious play. In their remaining 6 games 1959-62
Fischer scored +2 =3D4.
Among the top GMs of the Fischer era, only Tal and Geller had
winning records against Fischer.

> =A0 Indeed, it often happens that I stumble
> across sweeping claims regarding the great
> American hero, which are ludicrous when
> put to the test against many of his famous
> predecessors, including Mr. Tal, but even
> going back as far as another great
> American chess player, Paul Morphy.
>
> =A0 One last button-press: Dr. IMnes has even
> gone so far as to try and persuade readers
> that BF was a great chess openings
> innovator of sorts, relying on the rebadging
> of others' ideas which resulted from the
> stronger player's greater success. =A0From my
> perspective, this is ludicrous; we have plenty
> of real openings innovators, and there is no
> need to try and invent phony ones.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 06 Sep 2008 06:49:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 3:33=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I don't know too much about the big names yet (just who they are a little
> bio info), but I like some of the stuff I've seen Tal do. He seems pretty
> creative and brilliant with his moves.

It is an interesting fact that, while here in the
USA Bobby Fischer got all the press coverage,
at the same time (more or less) that BF made
his run at the FIDE title, Mr. Tal was setting a
world record for (master) games played in a
row without a loss. Formerly, this kind of
achievement was the dominion of such "dull"
players as Mr. Petrosian or Mr. Capablanca,
that latter of which was fairly inactive.

Here in rgc, there are more than a few who
are fanatical Bobby Fischer fans, who quite
literally /obsess/ over him despite his
disappearance from active play in 1972. I
like to press their buttons by pointing out the
fact that Mr. Fischer once was "spanked"
like a child by Mr. Tal-- who himself was just
a relative youngster at the time.

Indeed, it often happens that I stumble
across sweeping claims regarding the great
American hero, which are ludicrous when
put to the test against many of his famous
predecessors, including Mr. Tal, but even
going back as far as another great
American chess player, Paul Morphy.

One last button-press: Dr. IMnes has even
gone so far as to try and persuade readers
that BF was a great chess openings
innovator of sorts, relying on the rebadging
of others' ideas which resulted from the
stronger player's greater success. From my
perspective, this is ludicrous; we have plenty
of real openings innovators, and there is no
need to try and invent phony ones.

-- help bot

Date: 05 Sep 2008 17:46:13
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

What are the nature of the three sacrifices here in this four mover?

4B2R/4r3/Q7/p7/8/p1R2PN1/2bp1K2/3k4

Kf2 Qa6 Rc3 Rh8 Be8 Ng3 Pf3
Kd1 Re7 Bc2 Pa5 a3 d2

White to play and mate in 4.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 16:15:26
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

John, here is a site I like to go to to "blast out" all sorts of
sacrifices and maneuvers like this:

http://www.chessquizz.com/

Date: 05 Sep 2008 14:52:37
From:
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 3:33=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ded50f72-6bc8-4c4c-876e-6280b189f0ab@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 10:52 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =A0 Indeed, I always advise modern players to do
> their level best to avoid any hypothetical OTB
> confrontations with the "big three": grand
> masters Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine.
> (The reason is simple: most people don't enjoy
> losing.)
> -----
>
> I don't know too much about the big names yet (just who they are a little
> bio info),

Emanuel Lasker was chess world champion 1894-1921, Jos=E9 Ra=FAl
Capablanca 1921-1927, and Alexander Alekhine 1927-35 and 1937-1946. A
good survey of the world champions, very entertainingly written, is
"The Kings of Chess" by William Hartston (Harper & Row, 1985). Another
good general survey is Euwe's "The Development of Chess Style." Less
good, but still enjoyable, are "Impact of Genius" by R.E. Fauber and
"The World's Great Chess Games" by Reuben Fine. If you're really
ambitious, you could tackle Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors" series.

> but I like some of the stuff I've seen Tal do. He seems pretty
> creative and brilliant with his moves.

Tal had the briefest reign of all world world champions, 1960-61.
Had his health been better, he might have held the title longer, or
regained it after 1961. He was indeed creative and brilliant; now he's
up in chess heaven playing with Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca,
Alekhine, et al. Or so one might like to think.

Date: 06 Sep 2008 01:36:25
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

[email protected] wrote:

> Emanuel Lasker was chess world champion 1894-1921, Jos� Ra�l
> Capablanca 1921-1927, and Alexander Alekhine 1927-35 and 1937-1946. A
> good survey of the world champions, very entertainingly written, is
> "The Kings of Chess" by William Hartston (Harper & Row, 1985). Another
> good general survey is Euwe's "The Development of Chess Style." Less
> good, but still enjoyable, are "Impact of Genius" by R.E. Fauber and
> "The World's Great Chess Games" by Reuben Fine. If you're really
> ambitious, you could tackle Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors" series.

Wolff's book also has a chapter on the world champions, which is how I
know a little about them. The funny thing is that even before reading
that chapter, I had somehow (in the previous week or so as I became
interested in chess) already been exposed to all those names. I suppose
that's natural given their stature in the chess world.

Date: 05 Sep 2008 11:24:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

On Sep 5, 10:52=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:

> "Quite often we have an idea that cannot be put into practice because
> of the position of one of our opponent's pieces. But there are
> sometimes ways of decoying that enemy piece....."
>
> Most often this is used in king-side attacks but Alekhine (one of
> those "old guys" helpbot told you to avoid)

Indeed, I always advise modern players to do
their level best to avoid any hypothetical OTB
confrontations with the "big three": grand
masters Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine.
(The reason is simple: most people don't enjoy
losing.)

But it is a mistake to believe it is their old
age that I warned about. No, if anything, old
age serves to level the field a tad-- just a tad,
mind you. But all these matches are beyond
time, beyond space, in the realm of the vivid
imagination. Every player can thus be
imagined as being at their respective peaks,
at the same time. Hence, a Taylor Kingston
might be "2300+", while a nearly-an-IM Innes
might be "2450", and so forth. Even I can be
pictured as playing -- at my very peak -- above
the 2000 level.

Separated into a new paragraph for obvious
reasons, we come to Mr. Alekhine, to his
peak. What say you-- Bled 1931? Or was it
perhaps San Remo 1930, where our hero
"decimated" the field, leaving a trail of fallen
bodies in his titanic wake? No matter; the
point is, that at his peak Mr. Alekhine was
best avoided, except at Queen odds. Indeed,
my own battle in such a game lasted well
over a hundred moves, and I was lucky to
escape with a draw... .

-- help bot

Date: 05 Sep 2008 15:33:23
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics?

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ded50f72-6bc8-4c4c-876e-6280b189f0ab@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 5, 10:52 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:

Indeed, I always advise modern players to do
their level best to avoid any hypothetical OTB
confrontations with the "big three": grand
masters Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine.
(The reason is simple: most people don't enjoy
losing.)
-----

I don't know too much about the big names yet (just who they are a little
bio info), but I like some of the stuff I've seen Tal do. He seems pretty
creative and brilliant with his moves.