| |
Main
Date: 10 Mar 2008 07:33:38
From: Chess One
Subject: 20 Questions with Mickey Adams
|
Now showing
http://www.chessville.com:80/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Adams.htm
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 10:53:58
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Mickey Adams
|
On 10, 7:33 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now showing
>
> http://www.chessville.com:80/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Adams.htm
>
> Phil Innes
Thanks for that, and keep them coming.
William Hyde
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 18:56:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Mickey Adams
|
"William Hyde" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6b6a9f23-6bf6-4dab-b888-1b4b8fb43dd1@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 10, 7:33 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Now showing
>>
>> http://www.chessville.com:80/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Adams.htm
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Thanks for that, and keep them coming.
Chatting with him was fun. Not only did he not really recieve any great
mentorship with PH Clarke, the sense was he really raise himself by his own
bootstraps. And then there were the Tal anecdotes which I had never even
heard of, since I would have asked more particularly if I had.
Any surprises in there for you?
Cordially, Phil Innes
> William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 12:33:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Mickey Adams
|
On 11, 1:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> the so-forth being a commitment to a 4 year program, so that Morozevich
> already called it ridicoulous, and dropped out
Tigran Petrosian complained of three-year
cycles, saying he had spent twenty years
of his life with them.
> > while old-timers like GM Adorjan
> > are interested in reminiscing about the
> > good old days.
>
> does it seem so?
I said it did, in a memo.
> I thought Adorjan was asking 2 questions about these days -
> are players as creative and how so, and also if these days the top several
> hundred players were put into a tournament, would the results accord to
> world rankings and ELOs?
Yes, those are the fixations of GM Adorjan;
but they are not related to the person being
interviewed-- they're not /his/ fixations, nor
/his/ pet peeves, as we saw.
> neither of those seem 'reminiscing' in any /sentimental/ sense. people after
> all say that if Capablanca or Lasker and susch champions were around they
> would cream everybody.
Except BF and GK!
> Adorjan's questions were difficult for any single
> player to answer [from an objective point of view] since the means of
> measurement are not the same now as then, and suffered varieties of changes
> in between
I think someone would need time to ponder
them in-depth, which is obviously not the case
in these "interviews".
> > Having read complaints about the
> > "current" lack of creativity from as far
> > back as I can remember, it comes off as
> > a bit strained when modern old-timers
> > suggest that *they* were indeed the
> > greatest generation in that area.
>
> That is not a strictly sensible sentence.
It lacks style, or pinasche? (Did I just
misspell pinasche? Oh my.)
> Of course they were they greatest
> generation in that era - ipso facto they were world champion candidates! I
> wonder what else strains opinion from the corn-belt?
Ad hom duly noted. My point, for the
literacy-challenged readers, was that I
have been reading complaints about the
younger generation lacking creativity, long
before GM Adorjan got old and became
a chronic complainer. His idea is old hat,
and it appears to tell us more about the
complainers themselves than about reality,
much like the fellow who went 'round
complaining the whole world stinks; turned
out he just had some mustard on his upper
lip.
This fellow, GM Adorjan, ought to get up
on things; he ought to read about his
forebears, who complained that /his/
generation was lacking in creativity, just
as he now complains about his younger
successors. Even Socrates complained
about the younger generation, for heavens
sake!
> > It
> > reminds me a bit of the hoopla with
> > regard to "hyper-modern" chess; nine
> > times out of ten, credit for invention of
> > this style of play is given priily to a
> > generation far removed from its true
> > inventors, when all they really did,
> > perhaps, was /popularize/ it.
>
> Which they of the 2 groups do you refer to as popularizing?
If I understand that question, you want to
know who is most often credited with the
invention and/or popularization of hyper-modern
chess; the name Aron Nimzowitch pops to
mind, though writers are careful to add-on a few
others for good measure. And yet my very
favorite game of all time in this style of play
is one of Mr. Owen's-- from the previous
century no less.
> Really - you
> might learn to name your nouns, or submit to reading books as Larry and I
> highly recommend.
What is a nouns? Who is this mystery
man, "Larry"? I know only one person it
could be, who is known by a single name
(Elvis, Fonzie, Madonna, etc.): the guy
from The Three Stooges! Larry was, I
believe, the curly-haired one, who always
got picked on by "Moe", the mean one.
"Curly", if you recall, was actually bald.
I challenge any of these clowns to play
me at GetClubbed-- where I am nearly-
champion, unless you count Zeb, the
Fritz operator guy. I am certain that
TK will not return, because now the
program is too "improved" for him to
handle!
> Would you mean at all that by popularizing these ideas, they made them a
> real force at the GM level, which they were not before?
I would suggest that there was no "GM
level" in the days of the actual invention of
that style of play, except by retroactive
extrapolation. Talking about GM-levels is
a bit vague, since that title was not really
objectively awarded back then; we could
arbitrarily draw a line, and use retro.
ratings to say who was and who wasn't
a grandmaster.
But as for the invention of the style, it
obviously preceded the *birth* of AN, not
to mention his earning of any GM title. I
cannot say that I have ever seen a game
by AN which in any way superseded the
one by Mr. Owen; that's my opinion,
anyway.
> > Back to the subject of "journalism" for
> > a moment: will we see the viewpoints
> > of GM Adams "incorporated" into
> > future interviews? I expect not; I rather
> > expect that our nearly-journalist will
> > keep on hammering away with his all-
> > Adorjan, all-the-time slant and his
> > anti-FIDE-president agenda.
>
> Listen, I like a 99% democracy as well as the next Khan. When a woman
> journalist gets offed, and she is a hard line communist, then let us not
> talk about journalism as we know it in the West.
While the simple-minded will use their
knees to jerk and jump to the "obvious"
conclusion, there are those in this world
who are clever enough to take advantage
of them; to cleverly off an enemy of some
evil scum, so the simpletons will blame
him, or overthrow him, or perhaps just to
make him look bad. Sometimes their
plans fall through, and as we see, this
guy is still in power.
Sometimes the "obvious" answer is the
right one, and it might be that Mr. Kirsan
had no concern whatever for how bad he
would look when this critic turned up dead;
yet this is hard to believe, for such people
are normally very concerned about
appearances, about their public image;
just look at the FIDE Web site-- his pic is
plastered everywhere, and he raves about
his many achievements.
In this case, a reasonable explanation is
that he may have been /more concerned/
with sending a message to other would-be
critics; sort of like in The Godfather movie
where a wealthy man's favorite racehorse
is beheaded.
> Since I actually know Mickey Adams from [his] childhood, what actually
> passes between us, or me and others, is sometimes representable in public.
Is this the guy who let you draw him in
a few skittles games, so you would think
you were nearly-an-IM strength? I think
he was perhaps just using you to buy him
free beers.
> But what actually is the matter with Adorjan's views on chess subjects?
Well, that would best be handled in a
discussion of the GM Adorjan interview.
If you recall, /this/ interview was allegedly
an interview of GM Adams; it was about
/his/ views, /his/ life, right? Why rehash
the same old stuff every time, when there
is no connection? That is not an interview;
it is fit for an op/ed piece, as I have said
before.
> He certainly beefed up Kasparov's performance with black, and didn't do so bad
> for Peter Leko. Does help-snot not grant him this?
I missed it. It turns out that I was out
of chess for a long time, and some of the
things I missed included the "fall" of GK,
the rise of GM Kramnik, and so forth.
Jumping back into chess, I find that all
of a sudden, computers are invincible,
and the reigning world champ bores me
(and his opponents) to death. Next, FIDE
switches over to Action chess.
> Perhaps Our Greg has a hidden reservation which he is too shy to name?
Rattlesnake Cliffs? It's not really hidden;
it's just that no one can survive there,
except the Indians who survived far worse.
> Did I ask Paul Truong any questions about Fide?
If you were to drunk to remember, how
do you expect me to? As I recall, I was
the one who ate the plugged watermelon,
while you just downed a few beers.
Come on, fella-- just get up the gumption
to write an editorial piece, and stop mucking
around with silly manipulations of other
people in these alleged "interviews". If you
cared a whit about the opinions of the
interviewees, you would not try to shoehorn
your own pet peeves into their mouthes, in
a vain attempt to give them some kind of
credibility. Use logic and reason to build
upon, not celebrity status or whatnot. I
know you can do it; anyone who made it
to Class A like you did must have some
sort of ability to think rationally... I think.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 21:27:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Mickey Adams
|
On 10, 6:33 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now showing
>
> http://www.chessville.com:80/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Adams.htm
It looks like those players who dream of
"getting back into the top ten" are mainly
interested in things relating to that (like
FIDE's fumbling with time-controls and so
forth), while old-timers like GM Adorjan
are interested in reminiscing about the
good old days.
Having read complaints about the
"current" lack of creativity from as far
back as I can remember, it comes off as
a bit strained when modern old-timers
suggest that *they* were indeed the
greatest generation in that area. It
reminds me a bit of the hoopla with
regard to "hyper-modern" chess; nine
times out of ten, credit for invention of
this style of play is given priily to a
generation far removed from its true
inventors, when all they really did,
perhaps, was /popularize/ it.
Back to the subject of "journalism" for
a moment: will we see the viewpoints
of GM Adams "incorporated" into
future interviews? I expect not; I rather
expect that our nearly-journalist will
keep on hammering away with his all-
Adorjan, all-the-time slant and his
anti-FIDE-president agenda.
One thing I have noticed when
watching a certain TV station is its
*systematic* tendency to shut up or
interrupt those with different viewpoints,
so they cannot be heard. I bring this up
only because I recall that certain folks
were asked lots of questions about
FIDE when they agreed with the party
line, while GM Adams was not; he was
/not/ cooperative in attacking FIDE, and
so he was /not/ afforded the same
opportunities as former interviewees,
like the last one (Paul Truong). For
instance, "the question he wished he
had been asked, but wasn't" gave PT
something like three or four chances to
slam away at FIDE or other mutual pet
peeves, whereas the uncooperative MA
got just one such opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
GM Adorjan was also afforded the
benefit of multiple answers in this vein.
So, what is my beef? I simply want
"interviews" to be what they claim:
interviews; not disguised attempts to
lend some celebrity-based imaginary
credibility to ideas which could better
be discussed in an op-ed piece. It is
obvious to any sane person that a
celebrity cannot lend credibility to any
idea which cannot stand up on its own
merits. Likewise, it is obvious to the
sane that any idea with real merit has
no /need/ of propping up via celebrity
endorsements. Get it?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 14:14:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Mickey Adams
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:54c88e80-a64a-4918-8b48-d19913accda8@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 10, 6:33 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now showing
>>
>> http://www.chessville.com:80/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Adams.htm
>
>
> It looks like those players who dream of
> "getting back into the top ten" are mainly
> interested in things relating to that (like
> FIDE's fumbling with time-controls and so
> forth),
the so-forth being a commitment to a 4 year program, so that Morozevich
already called it ridicoulous, and dropped out
> while old-timers like GM Adorjan
> are interested in reminiscing about the
> good old days.
does it seem so? I thought Adorjan was asking 2 questions about these days -
are players as creative and how so, and also if these days the top several
hundred players were put into a tournament, would the results accord to
world rankings and ELOs?
neither of those seem 'reminiscing' in any /sentimental/ sense. people after
all say that if Capablanca or Lasker and susch champions were around they
would cream everybody. Adorjan's questions were difficult for any single
player to answer [from an objective point of view] since the means of
measurement are not the same now as then, and suffered varieties of changes
in between
> Having read complaints about the
> "current" lack of creativity from as far
> back as I can remember, it comes off as
> a bit strained when modern old-timers
> suggest that *they* were indeed the
> greatest generation in that area.
That is not a strictly sensible sentence. Of course they were they greatest
generation in that era - ipso facto they were world champion candidates! I
wonder what else strains opinion from the corn-belt?
> It
> reminds me a bit of the hoopla with
> regard to "hyper-modern" chess; nine
> times out of ten, credit for invention of
> this style of play is given priily to a
> generation far removed from its true
> inventors, when all they really did,
> perhaps, was /popularize/ it.
Which they of the 2 groups do you refer to as popularizing? Really - you
might learn to name your nouns, or submit to reading books as Larry and I
highly recommend.
Would you mean at all that by popularizing these ideas, they made them a
real force at the GM level, which they were not before?
> Back to the subject of "journalism" for
> a moment: will we see the viewpoints
> of GM Adams "incorporated" into
> future interviews? I expect not; I rather
> expect that our nearly-journalist will
> keep on hammering away with his all-
> Adorjan, all-the-time slant and his
> anti-FIDE-president agenda.
Listen, I like a 99% democracy as well as the next Khan. When a woman
journalist gets offed, and she is a hard line communist, then let us not
talk about journalism as we know it in the West.
Since I actually know Mickey Adams from [his] childhood, what actually
passes between us, or me and others, is sometimes representable in public.
But what actually is the matter with Adorjan's views on chess subjects? He
certainly beefed up Kasparov's performance with black, and didn't do so bad
for Peter Leko. Does help-snot not grant him this?
Perhaps Our Greg has a hidden reservation which he is too shy to name?
> One thing I have noticed when
> watching a certain TV station is its
> *systematic* tendency to shut up or
> interrupt those with different viewpoints,
> so they cannot be heard. I bring this up
> only because I recall that certain folks
> were asked lots of questions about
> FIDE when they agreed with the party
> line, while GM Adams was not; he was
> /not/ cooperative in attacking FIDE, and
> so he was /not/ afforded the same
> opportunities as former interviewees,
> like the last one (Paul Truong).
What exactly is Our Greg asking for? Does he think Mickey Adams has the same
orientation as Nigel Short? [ROFL]
Is he suggesting that I should have asked Mickey 7 questions about Fide?
Did I ask Paul Truong any questions about Fide?
Of course I had to ask PT questions about USCF's politics, since he is
embroiled in them and we have heard one side of it only, and that by proxy.
Is Our Greg suggesting I should have asked PT less questions about USCF?
Who knows what this person means, he who criticises other's chess
credentials, and even their journalism - but who can't write strighter than
a rattler?
> For
> instance, "the question he wished he
> had been asked, but wasn't" gave PT
> something like three or four chances to
> slam away at FIDE or other mutual pet
> peeves,
That is ALWAYS the last Chessville Question. Its what we call an 'open'
question, you see, and is not what we also call 'lead-directing'.
> whereas the uncooperative MA
> got just one such opportunity.
The same question?
What is Kennedy at now? Does he insist that Adams must address Fide issues?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
> GM Adorjan was also afforded the
> benefit of multiple answers in this vein.
>
> So, what is my beef? I simply want
> "interviews" to be what they claim:
> interviews; not disguised attempts to
> lend some celebrity-based imaginary
> credibility to ideas which could better
> be discussed in an op-ed piece. It is
> obvious to any sane person that a
> celebrity cannot lend credibility to any
> idea which cannot stand up on its own
> merits.
How 'ell put.
> Likewise, it is obvious to the
> sane
IF it is obvious, then you yourself need not rest on that crutch - since by
continuosly leading the reader with what they must observe in order to be
'sane', renders the sense of some desperate plea, rather than what is of
self-evidential merit.
> that any idea with real merit has
> no /need/ of propping up via celebrity
> endorsements. Get it?
Having read all the above I have no idea what the rather abstract criticism
means, neither, I suspect, does its own author.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
|
|
