Main
Date: 09 Dec 2007 10:21:55
From: M Winther
Subject: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html

Mats




 
Date: 11 Dec 2007 23:46:30
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 9, 1:21 am, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html
>
> Mats

I read the whole thing as a matter of principle,
but it was very hard, because this article so
stupid.

Such a lovely theme and such an ignorant, idiotic article.

This is a great pity. It's truy difficult to write it
so horribly wrong and shallow, shallow, shallow.

Wlod


  
Date: 12 Dec 2007 19:21:30
From: M Winther
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
Den 2007-12-12 08:46:30 skrev Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) <[email protected] >:

> On Dec 9, 1:21 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html
>>
>> Mats
>
> I read the whole thing as a matter of principle,
> but it was very hard, because this article so
> stupid.
>
> Such a lovely theme and such an ignorant, idiotic article.
>
> This is a great pity. It's truy difficult to write it
> so horribly wrong and shallow, shallow, shallow.
>
> Wlod
>


I have been sketching on an article on boardgames for a while,
employing a psychological perspective. This is not shallow.


THE ARCHETYPE OF THE BOARDGAME


INTRODUCTION

Ancient and medieval people viewed boardgames as doorways to the
spiritual sphere. They notoriously carved them into temple walls and
roofs. In Gloucester Cathedral, according to Murray ('A History of
Board-games other than Chess'), there are several Fox and Geese boards
incised on the stone seats. From the well in Norwich castle (a holy
place) was retrieved a game scratched on a flat stone. Fox and Geese
boards also occur inside, and on the outside walls of, the cloisters
of San Paolo, Rome. In the ancient temple at Kurna in Egypt there are
more than 70(?) board games painstakingly carved into the roofing
slabs. Boardgame patterns were put in such places where they couldn't
even be seen, walled up inside sacred places.

C.G. Jung, the Swiss psychologist, regarded games as of the utmost
importance to the sanity and well-being of men and their societies.
"Civilisations at their most complete moments," he said, "always
brought out in man his instinct to play and made it more inventive."
He would point out how in ancient Greece games had a religious origin.
"One of the most striking testimonies to the quality of the English
spirit," he once said, "is the English love of sport and games in a
classical sense and their genius for inventing games."
(Cf. van der Post, Jung and the Story of Our Time, p.45.)


THE SACRAMENTAL GAME

Murray (p.88) says that the board-game Fanorona played an interesting
part in the rituals in Madagascan culture. At the storming of the
capital by the French in 1895, the Queen and people relied far more on
the outcome of the official game which was being played by the ritual
professionals for victory, than they did on their armed forces.

Prof. Rangachar Vasantha (Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur)
has demonstrated that, in ancient India, boards and gaming pieces were
used as a means for consulting God. She has argued that games cannot
formally be distinguished from the temple or the magic circle (the
temenos and the mandala). Game diagrams were depicted in murals, built
into roofing slabs, and the floor of temples, in ancient India. In the
game, the devotee and the deity met.

Nigel Pennick, in 'Games of the Gods: The origin of board games in
magic and divination', argues that the sacred boardgame developed from
the sacramental ball game via an intermediary, namely the "living
boardgame".

The Aztec and Maya played a sacred ball game where the ball mustn't
hit the ground. "Living boardgames" is an intermediate of spectator
sports and boardgames. The Mogul emperors of India had the courtyard
of their palaces laid out as Pachisi boards, upon which slave girls
acted as pieces (Cf. Pennick, p.205f). So boardgames and ball games
are essentially the same thing: 'men' moving around on a field
according to certain rules.

The Viking game Hnefatafl and its Gaelic descendants, namely the
British Gwyddbwyll and the Irish Fidhchell, figure in many stories in
the Celtic tradition. It exemplifies finely the sacredness of the
boardgame. The corner squares were regarded as the four Otherworldly
cities to which the Tuatha de Danaan arrive. It was a godlike
idealized people around which many heroic stories revolve. On the
gaming board, which also represented the land, the center is regarded
as sacred and called Tara, the seat of High Kings. As the mystical
fifth dimension it represented the Otherworld itself, which was always
proximate, and overlying reality (Cf. Matthew, C., The Celtic
Tradition, pp.9-10).

In 10th century England this game was developed into Alea Evangelii
("The Evangelical game"). It was viewed it as an allegory of the
Evangelists. The 'priius vir' (the king) symbolized the unity of
the Trinity.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/tablut.htm


BOARDGAME MANDALAS

Boardgames employ diverse mandala structures, such as quadratic,
circular, cross-shaped, and triangular. Probably the relative
frequency is largely the same as among mandala paintings in the work
of patients. The quaternity (square) is the most common.

Cross-shaped examples are Fox and Geese (a medieval obsession)
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/Fox_Classic.htm

Gala
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/gala.htm

Triangular (tertiary) are Asian Leopard games
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/asian.htm

The Byzantine version of chess was round.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/circularchess.htm

Round shapes also appear among Indian war games.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/indian_wg.htm

Of course, the Chinese always viewed the number five as sacred, so the
traditional game '16 Rebels' uses a board with five corners.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinese_r.htm

An old quaternary game is the archaic Egyptian Siga. It was played
already by the pharaos.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/Egyptian_Siga.htm

Interestingly, in the modern time hexagonal games have surfaced, like
my own HexQuint
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/hexquint.htm


THE BOARDGAME AS ALCHEMICAL VESSEL

There are certain striking similarities between the central notions of
medieval alchemy and the occupation with boardgames/puzzles. The focal
point in alchemy was the Vas Hermeticum, the alembic, or the
alchemical retort, which are all different names for the alchemist's
vessel where the warring elements were subjected to heat and underwent
circular distillation. In the gaming business the board, as such, is
the equivalent of the hermetic vessel, while in it the warring
elements are added and sealed off from the outside world. In
alchemical manuscripts this is depicted as the conjunction of Sol et
Luna, Rex and Regina, winged and wingless dragon, etc. The latter bite
each other's tail, forming a circle, symbolic of the process. The same
idea is also portrayed as the Uroboros, the tail-biting serpent.

The goal of the process was the appearance of a spiritual substance,
i.e., the alchemist's gold, or the red elixir, etc. From the chaos,
the prima materia, of crude material substances, will arise a refined
spirit, the Spiritus Mercurius, the Stone of the Philosophers, which
had wonder-working properties.

Unconsciously, players do follow the alchemists' procedure when they
tend to get obsessed by the transformations in their vessels, that is,
their boardgames. This is essentially the same as the alchemist's
labourings with his chemicals. So we are in fact trying to synthesize
the most holy substance from our games. I think that involved in this
work is a phantasy of "The Perfect Game." We search to find this game
that will have wholesome effects on the ones who play it, and will
make them healthy, and bestow on them long lives, and also have
benevolent effects on the surrounding world.

I think this fantasy is still going on in our unconscious. Clearly,
the boardgame represents a spiritual mystery, a vessel in which the
spirit is captive, and this is where our fascination stems from.


THE BOARDGAME IN THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

It's interesting to study the development of boardgames from a
psychological perspective. Fox and Geese, played obsessively by the
medievals, originated with 13 men (Geese), which are trying to
surround the lonely Fox, initially positioned in the centre of the
cross-shaped board.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/Fox_Classic.htm

The red Fox can be understood as the elusive
Mercurius or Christ (the Self), and the light-coloured Geese would
then represent the combined forces of consciousness, which attempts to
enclose the precious divinity. The interpretation of the central piece
as the divine entity finds it counterpart in Alea Evangelii, above.
Also here the goal is to surround the 'priius vir', which was
understood as God himself.


Fox and Geese underwent an interesting development. Historically the
number of Geese increased, first to fifteen, and then to seventeen.
But this also implied that their movement was restricted. With fifteen
Geese backward movement is disallowed, and with seventeen Geese also
diagonal movement was disallowed.

The development seems to reflect an increase in the powers of
consciousness which coincides with the era. Increased in number, the
Geese could no longer back up. Consciousness was not allowed to
regress, but must relentlessly search to achieve its goal. This
goal-oriented attitude would coincide with the continual strengthening
of consciousness, and methods of contemplation, occurring during the
Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, up to the Age of Enlightenment.

In the latter era emerged the final version of this game, now often
named Asalto, although "Fox and Sheep" in some countries.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/asalto.htm

Now the light pieces were radically increased to twenty, and the
lonely Fox became two in number. Consciousness has again increased its
force, and with it the number two appears. It signifies a stronger
division between conscious and unconscious. As Jung points out, the
unconscious content will split into two at the verge of being
integrated with consciousness. Consciousness has now conquered the two
auxiliary psychic functions, which were only little occupied in the
initial version of the game.

But the conscious goal is no longer to reach a "Self" piece
positioned in the centre. The goal is no longer to attain the Self by
direct means, in the way of medieval Christian mystics. The stronger
light of consciousness had brought with it a ked division in the
psyche, and the naive wholeness of medieval man was lost. Therefore
the Self went into hiding behind the shadows of the unconscious, as it
were.

This is reflected in the new rules of the game. The task of the Geese
(Soldiers) is instead to occupy the nethermost square of the board.
This area would signify the unconscious (divine) realm, including the
fourth unconscious function. The two guardians, as two Sphinxes
guarding the gate, must try to ward of the forces of consciousness.
When the nether square, the fort, is filled with light pieces, the
unconscious fourth function will be conquered and the goal reached.

Historically, it's like the unconscious function, because of a
contrast effect, appears in company with an emancipation of
consciousness. The last evolution of the game reflects our modern view
of the spiritual path, namely to view the unconscious as a psychic
region, and then to grapple with the forces of the unconscious, before
we can reach wholeness and control all the four functions of the
psyche.

Mats Winther


   
Date: 13 Dec 2007 09:24:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
good post! - three other sources of information are:

www.goddesschess.com which has an article or two on the game as original
divination device

and 2 books, [unsure what title or availability in UK (?)]

a) first publ 1892, republ Dover 1961, is Games Ancient and Oriental and How
to Play Them, by Edward Falkener - which has a broader appreciation of
Egyptian origins than you cite below comprising 111 pages. Fascinatingly, it
has game scores too! The title continues at some depth to look at early
chess variants such as Tamerlane's chess, citing, eg, MS 260 Royal Asiatic
Soc, then Hyde's De ludis Orientalibus 1694, Bland's Persian Chess 1850, and
Forbes' The History of Chess 1860. Tamerlanes' has no less than 6 game
scores.

b) Discovering the Origins of Chess, Dr. Karoly Nagy, Studium Publ House,
Kolozsvar - Cluj, 1999, this title comprises 51 pages on Egyptian origins
and symbol systems, and is really a Monograph edition rather than 'a book'.
The author was born Romania 1937, PhD Semitic languages 1996. I have an
English language version, but its general availability is unknown. You would
have to be very interested in Egypt to read this title, but if so, I will
introduce you to publisher's agent, who may send you a copy]

--

I also note you mention Hnefatafl which, at least, correlated chess pieces
from the frequently used coins to carved figures, since the Viking game, and
Celtic offspring were seemingly figurine-based. The subject of the evolution
of Celtic iconographic presentation is alone, a large study.

Interesting you should quote Jung from Laurens vd Post. Fascinating the way
they met. I met Laurens under different circumstances <g >. Should you be
interested in achieving a wider audience, I can recommend Chessville's
publisher we present it with illustrations, whenever you are ready.

Cordially, Phil Innes

"M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:opt28il41q3bzrao@kalroten...
> Den 2007-12-12 08:46:30 skrev Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Dec 9, 1:21 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html
>>>
>>> Mats
>>
>> I read the whole thing as a matter of principle,
>> but it was very hard, because this article so
>> stupid.
>>
>> Such a lovely theme and such an ignorant, idiotic article.
>>
>> This is a great pity. It's truy difficult to write it
>> so horribly wrong and shallow, shallow, shallow.
>>
>> Wlod
>>
>
>
> I have been sketching on an article on boardgames for a while,
> employing a psychological perspective. This is not shallow.
>
>
> THE ARCHETYPE OF THE BOARDGAME
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> Ancient and medieval people viewed boardgames as doorways to the
> spiritual sphere. They notoriously carved them into temple walls and
> roofs. In Gloucester Cathedral, according to Murray ('A History of
> Board-games other than Chess'), there are several Fox and Geese boards
> incised on the stone seats. From the well in Norwich castle (a holy
> place) was retrieved a game scratched on a flat stone. Fox and Geese
> boards also occur inside, and on the outside walls of, the cloisters
> of San Paolo, Rome. In the ancient temple at Kurna in Egypt there are
> more than 70(?) board games painstakingly carved into the roofing
> slabs. Boardgame patterns were put in such places where they couldn't
> even be seen, walled up inside sacred places.
>
> C.G. Jung, the Swiss psychologist, regarded games as of the utmost
> importance to the sanity and well-being of men and their societies.
> "Civilisations at their most complete moments," he said, "always
> brought out in man his instinct to play and made it more inventive."
> He would point out how in ancient Greece games had a religious origin.
> "One of the most striking testimonies to the quality of the English
> spirit," he once said, "is the English love of sport and games in a
> classical sense and their genius for inventing games."
> (Cf. van der Post, Jung and the Story of Our Time, p.45.)
>
>
> THE SACRAMENTAL GAME
>
> Murray (p.88) says that the board-game Fanorona played an interesting
> part in the rituals in Madagascan culture. At the storming of the
> capital by the French in 1895, the Queen and people relied far more on
> the outcome of the official game which was being played by the ritual
> professionals for victory, than they did on their armed forces.
>
> Prof. Rangachar Vasantha (Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur)
> has demonstrated that, in ancient India, boards and gaming pieces were
> used as a means for consulting God. She has argued that games cannot
> formally be distinguished from the temple or the magic circle (the
> temenos and the mandala). Game diagrams were depicted in murals, built
> into roofing slabs, and the floor of temples, in ancient India. In the
> game, the devotee and the deity met.
>
> Nigel Pennick, in 'Games of the Gods: The origin of board games in
> magic and divination', argues that the sacred boardgame developed from
> the sacramental ball game via an intermediary, namely the "living
> boardgame".
>
> The Aztec and Maya played a sacred ball game where the ball mustn't
> hit the ground. "Living boardgames" is an intermediate of spectator
> sports and boardgames. The Mogul emperors of India had the courtyard
> of their palaces laid out as Pachisi boards, upon which slave girls
> acted as pieces (Cf. Pennick, p.205f). So boardgames and ball games
> are essentially the same thing: 'men' moving around on a field
> according to certain rules.
>
> The Viking game Hnefatafl and its Gaelic descendants, namely the
> British Gwyddbwyll and the Irish Fidhchell, figure in many stories in
> the Celtic tradition. It exemplifies finely the sacredness of the
> boardgame. The corner squares were regarded as the four Otherworldly
> cities to which the Tuatha de Danaan arrive. It was a godlike
> idealized people around which many heroic stories revolve. On the
> gaming board, which also represented the land, the center is regarded
> as sacred and called Tara, the seat of High Kings. As the mystical
> fifth dimension it represented the Otherworld itself, which was always
> proximate, and overlying reality (Cf. Matthew, C., The Celtic
> Tradition, pp.9-10).
>
> In 10th century England this game was developed into Alea Evangelii
> ("The Evangelical game"). It was viewed it as an allegory of the
> Evangelists. The 'priius vir' (the king) symbolized the unity of
> the Trinity.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/tablut.htm
>
>
> BOARDGAME MANDALAS
>
> Boardgames employ diverse mandala structures, such as quadratic,
> circular, cross-shaped, and triangular. Probably the relative
> frequency is largely the same as among mandala paintings in the work
> of patients. The quaternity (square) is the most common.
>
> Cross-shaped examples are Fox and Geese (a medieval obsession)
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/Fox_Classic.htm
>
> Gala
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/gala.htm
>
> Triangular (tertiary) are Asian Leopard games
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/asian.htm
>
> The Byzantine version of chess was round.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/circularchess.htm
>
> Round shapes also appear among Indian war games.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/indian_wg.htm
>
> Of course, the Chinese always viewed the number five as sacred, so the
> traditional game '16 Rebels' uses a board with five corners.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinese_r.htm
>
> An old quaternary game is the archaic Egyptian Siga. It was played
> already by the pharaos.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/Egyptian_Siga.htm
>
> Interestingly, in the modern time hexagonal games have surfaced, like
> my own HexQuint
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/hexquint.htm
>
>
> THE BOARDGAME AS ALCHEMICAL VESSEL
>
> There are certain striking similarities between the central notions of
> medieval alchemy and the occupation with boardgames/puzzles. The focal
> point in alchemy was the Vas Hermeticum, the alembic, or the
> alchemical retort, which are all different names for the alchemist's
> vessel where the warring elements were subjected to heat and underwent
> circular distillation. In the gaming business the board, as such, is
> the equivalent of the hermetic vessel, while in it the warring
> elements are added and sealed off from the outside world. In
> alchemical manuscripts this is depicted as the conjunction of Sol et
> Luna, Rex and Regina, winged and wingless dragon, etc. The latter bite
> each other's tail, forming a circle, symbolic of the process. The same
> idea is also portrayed as the Uroboros, the tail-biting serpent.
>
> The goal of the process was the appearance of a spiritual substance,
> i.e., the alchemist's gold, or the red elixir, etc. From the chaos,
> the prima materia, of crude material substances, will arise a refined
> spirit, the Spiritus Mercurius, the Stone of the Philosophers, which
> had wonder-working properties.
>
> Unconsciously, players do follow the alchemists' procedure when they
> tend to get obsessed by the transformations in their vessels, that is,
> their boardgames. This is essentially the same as the alchemist's
> labourings with his chemicals. So we are in fact trying to synthesize
> the most holy substance from our games. I think that involved in this
> work is a phantasy of "The Perfect Game." We search to find this game
> that will have wholesome effects on the ones who play it, and will
> make them healthy, and bestow on them long lives, and also have
> benevolent effects on the surrounding world.
>
> I think this fantasy is still going on in our unconscious. Clearly,
> the boardgame represents a spiritual mystery, a vessel in which the
> spirit is captive, and this is where our fascination stems from.
>
>
> THE BOARDGAME IN THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS
>
> It's interesting to study the development of boardgames from a
> psychological perspective. Fox and Geese, played obsessively by the
> medievals, originated with 13 men (Geese), which are trying to
> surround the lonely Fox, initially positioned in the centre of the
> cross-shaped board.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/Fox_Classic.htm
>
> The red Fox can be understood as the elusive
> Mercurius or Christ (the Self), and the light-coloured Geese would
> then represent the combined forces of consciousness, which attempts to
> enclose the precious divinity. The interpretation of the central piece
> as the divine entity finds it counterpart in Alea Evangelii, above.
> Also here the goal is to surround the 'priius vir', which was
> understood as God himself.
>
>
> Fox and Geese underwent an interesting development. Historically the
> number of Geese increased, first to fifteen, and then to seventeen.
> But this also implied that their movement was restricted. With fifteen
> Geese backward movement is disallowed, and with seventeen Geese also
> diagonal movement was disallowed.
>
> The development seems to reflect an increase in the powers of
> consciousness which coincides with the era. Increased in number, the
> Geese could no longer back up. Consciousness was not allowed to
> regress, but must relentlessly search to achieve its goal. This
> goal-oriented attitude would coincide with the continual strengthening
> of consciousness, and methods of contemplation, occurring during the
> Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, up to the Age of Enlightenment.
>
> In the latter era emerged the final version of this game, now often
> named Asalto, although "Fox and Sheep" in some countries.
> http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/asalto.htm
>
> Now the light pieces were radically increased to twenty, and the
> lonely Fox became two in number. Consciousness has again increased its
> force, and with it the number two appears. It signifies a stronger
> division between conscious and unconscious. As Jung points out, the
> unconscious content will split into two at the verge of being
> integrated with consciousness. Consciousness has now conquered the two
> auxiliary psychic functions, which were only little occupied in the
> initial version of the game.
>
> But the conscious goal is no longer to reach a "Self" piece
> positioned in the centre. The goal is no longer to attain the Self by
> direct means, in the way of medieval Christian mystics. The stronger
> light of consciousness had brought with it a ked division in the
> psyche, and the naive wholeness of medieval man was lost. Therefore
> the Self went into hiding behind the shadows of the unconscious, as it
> were.
>
> This is reflected in the new rules of the game. The task of the Geese
> (Soldiers) is instead to occupy the nethermost square of the board.
> This area would signify the unconscious (divine) realm, including the
> fourth unconscious function. The two guardians, as two Sphinxes
> guarding the gate, must try to ward of the forces of consciousness.
> When the nether square, the fort, is filled with light pieces, the
> unconscious fourth function will be conquered and the goal reached.
>
> Historically, it's like the unconscious function, because of a
> contrast effect, appears in company with an emancipation of
> consciousness. The last evolution of the game reflects our modern view
> of the spiritual path, namely to view the unconscious as a psychic
> region, and then to grapple with the forces of the unconscious, before
> we can reach wholeness and control all the four functions of the
> psyche.
>
> Mats Winther




 
Date: 11 Dec 2007 07:23:25
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 9, 4:21 am, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html

Good Lord, one would think Time magazine might have gotten someone
who actually knows something about chess to write such a featured
article, but no:

"The U.S.S.R. has produced few, if any, romantic, slashing players
like Alekhine, who grew up under the Czars. Instead, modern Russian
players tend to concentrate on establishing strong defensive
positions."

This is like saying the USA has produced few if any good Afro-
American basketball players. The author, one Gilbert Cant, seems never
to have heard of Tal, Keres, Bronstein, Kotov, or Stein, not to
mention any number of other Soviet GMs of the time who were often
"romantic, slashing players," including, on occasion, even such
supposedly "defensive" types as Petrosian and Smyslov. Sheesh.


  
Date: 12 Dec 2007 18:22:59
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
> She also repeats the sold out match
> v Botvinnik with 400 spectators, stopped traffic etc. I never read /A
> Chessplayers' Jottings/ his 1957 book. Maybe someone here has?

The curious thing about Kotov dealing with his last-round game with
Botvinnik is that he just quotes Botvinnik! After two paragraphs (400
spectators, full house, crowd on both sides of the river, traffic
stopped), Kotov takes the account up again with these words: ""I did
not see anything of this, later I learnt these facts from others."

Christian S=E1nchez (Rosario, Argentina)


   
Date: 13 Dec 2007 10:02:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess

"Chvsanchez" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> She also repeats the sold out match
> v Botvinnik with 400 spectators, stopped traffic etc. I never read /A
> Chessplayers' Jottings/ his 1957 book. Maybe someone here has?

The curious thing about Kotov dealing with his last-round game with
Botvinnik is that he just quotes Botvinnik! After two paragraphs (400
spectators, full house, crowd on both sides of the river, traffic
stopped), Kotov takes the account up again with these words: ""I did
not see anything of this, later I learnt these facts from others."

Christian S�nchez (Rosario, Argentina)

--
Ay, Christian! But SSC is a /very/ strange book. From the citation above, if
you were dubious, then you would think it was maybe a little apochryphal, or
simply exxagerated. But maybe not, though independent sourcing for
verification is difficult.

In terms of strangeness, there is only one Alekhine game, a loss to Keres in
1936 in [Mannheim?] Germany. How odd the author should then go on to write a
chessic biography of Alekhine!

It is more understandable that there is only one Spassky game, [a win over
Furman] because of his youth at the time of writing, but Kotov's
commentaries fail to foresee anything much of the great stature of Spassky,
other than the final laconic note that he was the youngest player in the
world to obtain an IGM title.

At least there is /some/ drama in his intro to Spassky:-

"Boris Spassky was born in 1937. When the Great Patriotic War began and
Hitler's armies moved on Leningrad, he was evacuated together with thousands
of other children. He spent four years in a Kirov region children's home..."
where it goes on to say he learned chess and the senior club coach was one
Vladimir Zak, "an experienced candidate-master".

Cordially, Phil Innes




  
Date: 12 Dec 2007 09:04:06
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 12, 11:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > On Dec 11, 4:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Kotov did not beat Botvinnik, but became the 3rd Soviet named
> >> 'grandmaster',
> >> [Botvinnik first 1935, Levenfish second, 1937].
>
> > Actually, the first "Grandmaster of the USSR" was Boris Verlinsky
> > (1888-1950), who received the title in 1929. Soltis, on page 57 of
> > "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" says the title "was abolished in 1931 and not
> > revived until Botvinnik received it in 1935."
>
> Ah! I didn't know that. But [laugh] I bet Kotov did - but possibly forgot to
> mention the recount?

Oh, I'll bet he did not forget, unless we mean the kind of
forgetting involved in an Orwellian "memory hole." As you point out
below, Kotov was very much one of the foremost Communist propagandists
among the Soviet GMs. I doubt he would write anything contrary to the
prevailing political winds; rather he'd add plenty of his own air.
Kotov's political connections were many and powerful. It was rumored
that his greatest international triumph, when he won the 1952
Interzonal ahead (by a full three points!) of a field including
Petrosian, Geller, Taimanov, Gligoric and other greats, was due to
opponents fearing his connections with the Soviet secret police.

> > Bronstein, in "The
> > Sorcerer's Apprentice," puts a more sinister spin on this, saying that
> > Verlinsky's title was retroactively rescinded so that Botvinnik could
> > become the new official "first"; he seems to imply that Botvinnik's
> > egotism was behind this.
>
> Yes... About 7 years ago I understood there was to be a Bronstein/Other
> title addressing Botvinnik's role in the chess of the USSR. Rekably,
> family-Botvinnik offered to sue /before/ publication. Though my
> correspondent assured me that law-suits in russia were rather different than
> in the USA, even so, illegal prior-restraint had been heard of ;)
>
> ---
>
> In any case, the book I cited has the most rekable introduction in it of
> any title I ever read. The Dover introduction begin with a warning that the
> contents are often untrue. {!}
>
> "It is stated, for example, that the growth of the Soviet School took
> place immediately after the October Revolution in 1917; in actual fact, it
> was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet players began venturing
> abroad... that the USSR was recognized as any sort of chess power at all. As
> late as 1940 there were only five international Grandmasters in the Soviet
> Union."
>
> Shall we credit the anon editor of this Dover piece to mean 'living' GMs?
>
> As well as other matters of history the editor also feels it right to
> mention that a 'group of players from Riga' did not invent the Latvian, but
> Greco did. They continue to talk about the striking inconsistencies in
> treatment, especially of Alekhine, where the editor says that nowhere in his
> writing do we find any indication he was 'keenly aware of his separation
> from his native land' or that 'he had made a great mistake leaving it in
> 1921.'
>
> Obvious the political tide had turned and 'Russia's Greatest Player' was
> barely mentioned in Nicolai Grekov's /Soviet Chess/ (1948.)
>
> These may seem rather serious reservations, but in the final para it states
> a need to separate propaganda from the Truth. I can;t do better than to
> render it whole:
>
> "Specifically we should be aware that this book was originally published
> for dissemination among English-speaking peoples and that literature of this
> type, though helpful in our ultimate understanding of the game, is very
> often riddled with distortion. The publishers of this Dover edition are very
> much concerned that readers be aware of the propaganda techniques employed,
> even in the history of chess, by the Soviet Union."
>
> New York City, Dover Publications Inc, May 1961.
>
> Elsewhere in the text, 'promising lines' are indicated to be red-herrings,
> and actually somewhat deceptive of the worth of the position. And yes, Kotov
> was the co-author of all this Government sponsored propaganda.
>
> //Phil Innes



   
Date: 12 Dec 2007 12:38:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess

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

>> > Actually, the first "Grandmaster of the USSR" was Boris Verlinsky
>> > (1888-1950), who received the title in 1929. Soltis, on page 57 of
>> > "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" says the title "was abolished in 1931 and not
>> > revived until Botvinnik received it in 1935."
>>
>> Ah! I didn't know that. But [laugh] I bet Kotov did - but possibly forgot
>> to
>> mention the recount?
>
> Oh, I'll bet he did not forget, unless we mean the kind of

yes, I was giving my comment a little english

> forgetting involved in an Orwellian "memory hole." As you point out
> below, Kotov was very much one of the foremost Communist propagandists
> among the Soviet GMs. I doubt he would write anything contrary to the
> prevailing political winds; rather he'd add plenty of his own air.

although, from other answers to this issue, it was just normal - no one of
this generation did aught but obey - it was much later that we got to see
any resistance from such as Bronstein, Spassky and especially Korchnoi

> Kotov's political connections were many and powerful. It was rumored
> that his greatest international triumph, when he won the 1952
> Interzonal ahead (by a full three points!) of a field including
> Petrosian, Geller, Taimanov, Gligoric and other greats, was due to
> opponents fearing his connections with the Soviet secret police.

Its always complicated! Since their is also no doubt that such a fiery
player could just turn it on. Contextually though, he would have been a
favorite. I note that other encyclopedias seem to quote Soviet School
direct - eg Anne Sunnucks also cites him as 3rd 'USSR' grandmaster, and
makes no other mention of predessessors. She also repeats the sold out match
v Botvinnik with 4,00 spectators, stopped traffic etc. I never read /A
Chessplayers' Jottings/ his 1957 book. Maybe someone here has?

Have to go drive over the mountain from Ct to Champlain valley - brutal up
top but there is a weather window this afternoon, first time this month down
here daytime temp over freezing. 5 day noreaster on the way in!

Phil Innes




  
Date: 12 Dec 2007 07:41:29
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 11, 4:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Kotov did not beat Botvinnik, but became the 3rd Soviet named 'grandmaster',
> [Botvinnik first 1935, Levenfish second, 1937].

Actually, the first "Grandmaster of the USSR" was Boris Verlinsky
(1888-1950), who received the title in 1929. Soltis, on page 57 of
"Soviet Chess 1917-1991" says the title "was abolished in 1931 and not
revived until Botvinnik received it in 1935." Bronstein, in "The
Sorcerer's Apprentice," puts a more sinister spin on this, saying that
Verlinsky's title was retroactively rescinded so that Botvinnik could
become the new official "first"; he seems to imply that Botvinnik's
egotism was behind this.


   
Date: 12 Dec 2007 11:11:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1f9bcc22-c3f9-41f1-a6ea-a826c8c73cc7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 4:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Kotov did not beat Botvinnik, but became the 3rd Soviet named
>> 'grandmaster',
>> [Botvinnik first 1935, Levenfish second, 1937].
>
> Actually, the first "Grandmaster of the USSR" was Boris Verlinsky
> (1888-1950), who received the title in 1929. Soltis, on page 57 of
> "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" says the title "was abolished in 1931 and not
> revived until Botvinnik received it in 1935."

Ah! I didn't know that. But [laugh] I bet Kotov did - but possibly forgot to
mention the recount?

> Bronstein, in "The
> Sorcerer's Apprentice," puts a more sinister spin on this, saying that
> Verlinsky's title was retroactively rescinded so that Botvinnik could
> become the new official "first"; he seems to imply that Botvinnik's
> egotism was behind this.

Yes... About 7 years ago I understood there was to be a Bronstein/Other
title addressing Botvinnik's role in the chess of the USSR. Rekably,
family-Botvinnik offered to sue /before/ publication. Though my
correspondent assured me that law-suits in russia were rather different than
in the USA, even so, illegal prior-restraint had been heard of ;)

---

In any case, the book I cited has the most rekable introduction in it of
any title I ever read. The Dover introduction begin with a warning that the
contents are often untrue. {!}

"It is stated, for example, that the growth of the Soviet School took
place immediately after the October Revolution in 1917; in actual fact, it
was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet players began venturing
abroad... that the USSR was recognized as any sort of chess power at all. As
late as 1940 there were only five international Grandmasters in the Soviet
Union."

Shall we credit the anon editor of this Dover piece to mean 'living' GMs?

As well as other matters of history the editor also feels it right to
mention that a 'group of players from Riga' did not invent the Latvian, but
Greco did. They continue to talk about the striking inconsistencies in
treatment, especially of Alekhine, where the editor says that nowhere in his
writing do we find any indication he was 'keenly aware of his separation
from his native land' or that 'he had made a great mistake leaving it in
1921.'

Obvious the political tide had turned and 'Russia's Greatest Player' was
barely mentioned in Nicolai Grekov's /Soviet Chess/ (1948.)

These may seem rather serious reservations, but in the final para it states
a need to separate propaganda from the Truth. I can;t do better than to
render it whole:

"Specifically we should be aware that this book was originally published
for dissemination among English-speaking peoples and that literature of this
type, though helpful in our ultimate understanding of the game, is very
often riddled with distortion. The publishers of this Dover edition are very
much concerned that readers be aware of the propaganda techniques employed,
even in the history of chess, by the Soviet Union."

New York City, Dover Publications Inc, May 1961.

Elsewhere in the text, 'promising lines' are indicated to be red-herrings,
and actually somewhat deceptive of the worth of the position. And yes, Kotov
was the co-author of all this Government sponsored propaganda.

//Phil Innes




  
Date: 12 Dec 2007 00:09:28
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 11, 12:16 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> In addition to GMs Petrosian and Smyslov, one could
> add GMs like Botvinnik and maybe Kortchnoi to the
> list of "solids" the writer might have been thinking of.

You have named four players which differ one from
another a lot!

I would not call Korchnoi solid. Solid players don't snatch
pawns the way Korchnoi did. Fischer was taking "the poison
pawn" in Sicilian (up to a moment :-) but Korchnoi was
really addicted to taking pawns in situations which would terrify
almost every grandmaster. Thus Karpov was solid, but the
article was written just before Karpov became a world class
grandmaster.

Regards,

Wlod


  
Date: 12 Dec 2007 00:00:24
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 11, 2:33 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:16 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps someone could tell us about the playing
> > styles of GMs Stein and Kotov, who were mentioned
> > above?
>
> Of Alexander Kotov (1913-1981) Raymond Keene wrote "A powerful
> Russian whose style has been compared to a sledgehammer." He describes
> Leonid Stein (1939-1973) as "a mighty tactician famed for his dynamic
> power-play ... a grandmaster in the same mould as Alekhine and Tal."
> Definitely not safety-first types.

Stein was also a strong end-game player.
In some games he reminded me of Rubinstein.

Shirov is thought of as a tactical player. But
his striving for getting dangerous connected
passed pawns reminds me Stein and Rubinstein.
There is perhaps little known game by Rubinstein
in which he had this strange x-ray concept of
getting finally his pawns through the crowd of pieces.
Stein played a similar idea in at least one of his
games, and for Shirov it became his signature
(Kasparov would say: "... or you may try to play
this position a la Shirov" -- something like this).

Young Stein played super fast.

Regards,

Wlod


  
Date: 11 Dec 2007 14:33:17
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 11, 3:16 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone could tell us about the playing
> styles of GMs Stein and Kotov, who were mentioned
> above?

Of Alexander Kotov (1913-1981) Raymond Keene wrote "A powerful
Russian whose style has been compared to a sledgehammer." He describes
Leonid Stein (1939-1973) as "a mighty tactician famed for his dynamic
power-play ... a grandmaster in the same mould as Alekhine and Tal."
Definitely not safety-first types.


  
Date: 11 Dec 2007 12:16:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess
On Dec 11, 10:23 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 4:21 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"
>
> >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html
>
> Good Lord, one would think Time magazine might have gotten someone
> who actually knows something about chess to write such a featured
> article, but no:
>
> "The U.S.S.R. has produced few, if any, romantic, slashing players
> like Alekhine, who grew up under the Czars. Instead, modern Russian
> players tend to concentrate on establishing strong defensive
> positions."
>
> This is like saying the USA has produced few if any good Afro-
> American basketball players. The author, one Gilbert Cant, seems never
> to have heard of Tal, Keres, Bronstein, Kotov, or Stein, not to
> mention any number of other Soviet GMs of the time who were often
> "romantic, slashing players," including, on occasion, even such
> supposedly "defensive" types as Petrosian and Smyslov. Sheesh.

In addition to GMs Petrosian and Smyslov, one could
add GMs like Botvinnik and maybe Kortchnoi to the
list of "solids" the writer might have been thinking of.

I don't think it is accurate to characterize GM Alekhine
as a romantic slasher; he seemed to be a very well-
balanced type of player overall. When I think of this
phrase, I go back to the days of Paul Morphy, back to
a time when neither side would defend but both would
try to attack at the same time. I think of players from
that era, with the notable exception of PM himself, and
maybe Howard Staunton. Apart from GM Tal, the name
which leaps to my mind is that of Adolf Anderson-- a
player who liked to line up a bunch of pieces on the
enemy King, then announce a mate-in-eight moves.

Perhaps someone could tell us about the playing
styles of GMs Stein and Kotov, who were mentioned
above?

What are the odds that instead of titanic ignorance,
the writer of that piece was making some sort of joke?
I mean, given the timing alone, it is hard to imagine he
could have overlooked GMs Tal and Spassky in 1972.
Looking at some of the world champions prior to that
piece, GMs Botvinnik and Petrosian, it is not hard to
imagine some feelings that the so-called defensive,
positional play was beyond the understanding of
most players; I recall watching people play over some
games a few years later, where Black tosses out the
move ...a5, whereupon GM Karpov diligently shot
back a4! in reply; blank stares all around (what the
heck was that about? Nothing was threatened or
defended, apart from "mere" space).

Without having read the article, I venture to guess
that the timing thereof -- 1972 -- tells the tale; some
Cold War propaganda piece requires an indictment
of the Soviet school of chess, of Russians in general,
much like the stuff published under GM Alekhine's
name in WWII. "Em. Lasker may have been the
world champ, but he was a lousy chess player. True,
no one could beat him, but his moves were no good
because of their crummy style. In fact, even my old
friend Bogo could have given him Queen odds. That's
because Jews and Slavs can't play chess. Or was
Bogo also a Jew? No matter... bash, bash, bash... ."

The movie "Dr, Strangelove" leaps to mind; once the
nukes have hit, we need to make sure the Russkies
don't come out of their shelters and caves before we
do, to rule the desolate, radiation-poisoned planet.
If the cockroaches take over, that's one thing; but it
is quite another to risk letting the Russkies get in
control... .


-- help bot







   
Date: 11 Dec 2007 16:37:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess

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


> In addition to GMs Petrosian and Smyslov, one could
> add GMs like Botvinnik and maybe Kortchnoi to the
> list of "solids" the writer might have been thinking of.
>
> I don't think it is accurate to characterize GM Alekhine
> as a romantic slasher; he seemed to be a very well-
> balanced type of player overall. When I think of this
> phrase, I go back to the days of Paul Morphy, back to
> a time when neither side would defend but both would
> try to attack at the same time. I think of players from
> that era, with the notable exception of PM himself, and
> maybe Howard Staunton. Apart from GM Tal, the name
> which leaps to my mind is that of Adolf Anderson-- a
> player who liked to line up a bunch of pieces on the
> enemy King, then announce a mate-in-eight moves.
>
> Perhaps someone could tell us about the playing
> styles of GMs Stein and Kotov, who were mentioned
> above?

In Kotov's own book [with Yudovich] he lists 20 of his own games. There is a
description of the player on page 221 of the Dover edition of 'The Soviet
School of Chess'.There is an interesting description of his encounter with
Botvinnik: it is 1939, tickets sold out a day in advance, demonstration
boards set up on one bank of the Moika [river] and after one bank filled
up, then the other, traffic came to a standstill. He says of himself that he
was 'nervous, but confident.

He did not beat Botvinnik, but became the 3rd Soviet named 'grandmaster',
[Botvinnik first 1935, Levenfish second, 1937]. It says of his play, "One of
his main characteristics, namely, a fine feeling for the initiative, became
clearly apparent.'

In the wordage of the time, of this /very/ political book, his attacks were
characterised as 'smashing'.

Of his traits, he is also "objectivity in appraising his own play and an
attentive, critical attitude towards his shortcomings. He realised sooner
than many critics that his weak point lay in a predominance of tactical
skill over the strategic."

He was stimulated by Chigorin, it says, whose "diversified playing and
outstanding analytical art have exerted a tremendous influence on Kotov."

he took part in the post-war radio match, 1945, SU vs USA where he defeated
Kashdan in 2 games, and which the Su won 15.5 to 4.5.

That is some sort of idea of the art, or formation of the player.

> What are the odds that instead of titanic ignorance,
> the writer of that piece was making some sort of joke?

A tempting hypothesis, but, alas alack! Even the NY Times has an insipid
chess column, more anxious for dirt on chess, so it seems, than the art of
chess. I think it was 4 years ago when Reuters followed by AP fired their
special chess correspondents, so now we get these bananas ;)

> I mean, given the timing alone, it is hard to imagine he
> could have overlooked GMs Tal and Spassky in 1972.

Ay. But this is no writer who knows chess. Its some whiz-kid kiting an
article, but who don;t know nuthin'.

> Looking at some of the world champions prior to that
> piece, GMs Botvinnik and Petrosian, it is not hard to
> imagine some feelings that the so-called defensive,
> positional play was beyond the understanding of
> most players; I recall watching people play over some
> games a few years later, where Black tosses out the
> move ...a5, whereupon GM Karpov diligently shot
> back a4! in reply; blank stares all around (what the
> heck was that about? Nothing was threatened or
> defended, apart from "mere" space).
>
> Without having read the article, I venture to guess
> that the timing thereof -- 1972 -- tells the tale; some
> Cold War propaganda piece requires an indictment
> of the Soviet school of chess, of Russians in general,
> much like the stuff published under GM Alekhine's
> name in WWII. "Em. Lasker may have been the
> world champ, but he was a lousy chess player. True,
> no one could beat him, but his moves were no good
> because of their crummy style. In fact, even my old
> friend Bogo could have given him Queen odds. That's
> because Jews and Slavs can't play chess. Or was
> Bogo also a Jew? No matter... bash, bash, bash... ."

And so we get a look at Western propaganda, to compare with the Soviet
variety. The Soviets picked their favorites, unfairly, but the West had
little to say of any depth that was not about its obsession on
character-heroics, and not the art or nature of chess at all.

That is why the West fell behind - it bought all the propaganda, and
competed with it, rather than independent assessment of the East's art of
chess, and study of that, combined with their own genius. But that is to
mention what Fischer alone did, and alone.

Phil Innes

> The movie "Dr, Strangelove" leaps to mind; once the
> nukes have hit, we need to make sure the Russkies
> don't come out of their shelters and caves before we
> do, to rule the desolate, radiation-poisoned planet.
> If the cockroaches take over, that's one thing; but it
> is quite another to risk letting the Russkies get in
> control... .
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>




  
Date: 11 Dec 2007 11:26:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: TIME: The Psychology of Chess

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 9, 4:21 am, "M Winther" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> TIME magazine 1972: "Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess"
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910405,00.html
>
> Good Lord, one would think Time magazine might have gotten someone
> who actually knows something about chess to write such a featured
> article, but no:
>
> "The U.S.S.R. has produced few, if any, romantic, slashing players
> like Alekhine, who grew up under the Czars. Instead, modern Russian
> players tend to concentrate on establishing strong defensive
> positions."
>
> This is like saying the USA has produced few if any good Afro-
> American basketball players. The author, one Gilbert Cant, seems never
> to have heard of Tal, Keres, Bronstein, Kotov, or Stein, not to
> mention any number of other Soviet GMs of the time who were often
> "romantic, slashing players," including, on occasion, even such
> supposedly "defensive" types as Petrosian and Smyslov. Sheesh.

I agree Taylor - but I read this post after posting mine in a new thread -
Tal reminds me of Paganini - though I wanted to honor Wlod for writing with
some spirit - Taimanov's response would sit as well here.

Phil Innes