Kasparov beats Karpov in chess battle in Valencia rian.ru/sports Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Clash of the titans: Chess legends Kasparov and Karpov poised for rematch Daily Mail - UK Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Checkmate BBC News Take a look at an interesting article we found.
if you missed a movie the first time around, don't worry. It's probably coming back.
September 25, 2009
I don't know if you've read “The Royal Game" by Austrian writer, Stefan Zweig.
It's a short novel about a man in solitary confinement who maintains his sanity by studying a book of master chess games, which he plays endlessly in his mind, until it becomes all consuming.
What got me thinking about it was the fact that Chess champions Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov, perhaps the best of all time, are warring again.
They’re in Valencia, Spain, this week for an eight-game match, kicking off a tour to commemorate their first epic encounter 25 years ago at the 1984 world championships in Moscow.
If you don’t think chess is war, consider that the first of six battles was such a grueling marathon they stopped it after 48 games. Even though Karpov was one win away from victory, he was so emaciated from a 22-pound weight loss, he was one step away from physical breakdown.
In the early 70s, Russia had lost the moon race; it couldn’t lose a chess match against the American champion, Bobby (“I like the moment when I break a man's ego”) Fischer against their champion, Boris Spassky.
Spassky was never the same again.
No one really knows where this oldest of skill games originated. The Moors, who learned chess from the Persians, took their knowledge with them when they invaded Spain.
Soon, this medieval history lesson, spread to Europe.
The pawns on a chessboard, consisting of 64 squares, eight rows and eight columns, represent serfs, or laborers. There are more of them than any other piece and are often sacrificed to save the more valuable pieces.
Like the Castle, representing home, and the Knight, the professional soldier whose job it is to protect persons of rank.
The Bishop represents the church.
The Queen is the only piece on the board that's a woman, and she is the most powerful piece of the game.
(Talk about ambivalent feelings about women in those days.)
The King is the tallest piece. He can't move too well, so he must be protected by, mainly, the Queen.
Kasparov versus the World was played on the Internet in 1999.
He took on 50,000 chess players from around the world and they decided moves by plurality vote.
After 62 moves, played over four months, Kasparov won the game. In his words:
"It is the greatest game in the history of chess. The sheer number of ideas, the complexity, and the contribution it has made to chess make it the most important game ever played."
Damn. I know that Zweig book is around here someplace.
Chess Strategy chesscentral.com Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Best All Time Chess Games .geocities.com Take a look at an interesting article we found.
History of Chess chess-poster.com Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Chess is certainly one of the best board games of all time, but I must respectfully disagree with...
Sep. 25, 2009 4:52 AM
Most intelligent game?
9% 9% 47% 3% 31%
Chess is not a game, it is a life style. When you learn to plan ahead, you succeed. But, as in chess, if you are the defender, you must merely survive to be considered a winner; the agressor has to win to succeed.
Chess is certainly one of the best board games of all time, but I must respectfully disagree with the RSS tagline of it being the oldest and most intelligent game devised. The oldest game in recorded history is Senet, played by ancient Egyptians. From what I can tell, it's a distant cousin to modern-day backgammon.
There is another game that is significantly older, and in my opinion significantly more intelligent. Its name is Go. Go has been played for at least 2,500 years, while Chess has been played for a relatively mere 1,500 years, give or take. The rules of Go are very elegant: Place one of your stones on one of the intersections of the grid board. If your placed stone completely surrounds a stone or group of stones belonging to your opponent, you capture those stones. When neither side wishes to make any further moves, the player who has the most territory and captures wins. There is slightly more to it than that (of note is the ko rule, which disallows endless fighting back and forth over a piece of territory), but now you know everything you truly need to play Go.
From those simple rules springs a game of nearly limitless complexity. It is estimated that the number of possible different games of Go is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe. While the best chess computers can give the world's best players a very serious run for the money, the best Go computers only give a really good amateur a challenge. Top players have to give the computer a significant handicap, about the equivalent of the computer playing Chess without a queen.
And to think that Go has barely been heard of outside of Asia.
more on the honor rollPlaying chess develops your problem solving skills. I'm not sure if its an obsession or a meditative process like daily prayer,
I've learned my brain is singularly inept at both chess and at Go....I've learned that in chess, there's a lot of implicit learning involved (subliminal recognition of patterns previously encountered). My propensity to 'think through' possible future moves is obviously inadequate. Doing it 'like a computer' simply doesn't work since human brains can't handle the volume of logical branche.... In short, I suck at chess. I suck at chess even after spending a lot of time in The New York Times 'chess section. Yes, I did try various openings and middle games. (This was way back in high school when I had plenty of time -- since I didn't study).
My first encounter with Go was back in th 60s, during a (fairly disastrous) trip to Washington, D.C. to spend a holiday with a friend from college. After he dumped me off in DuPont Circle, then a center of hippiedom I wandered about and eventually sat on the grass to watch a guy and his girlfriend playing a weird board game. After a half an hour or so I spoke up (big surprise, huh) and they told me it was called 'Go'. They briefly described the rules. That's not really why I remember them, though.... it was because he was a semi-pro motorcycle racer. And it was there that I learned the basics of motorcycle racing: (1) wear leathers -- always; (2) wear gloves -- always; (3) wear helmet -- always, (4) if you bike goes down, get your downside leg out before the weight of the bike crushes it; (5) as your bike slides, try to 'ride it' and let it take the impact when it hits a 'stopping object' (like a car, pole, or curb); and -- finally -- (6) stay away from trees! I've never been on a motorcycle since that night. And every time I watch young males zipping down the freeway at 85 mph sans helmet in Hawaiian shirt and in shorts I think of Go!
Here's more than you ever wanted to know about Go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29 BUT... if you want to try playing Go, here's a very cool interactive online simulator... http://playgo.to/interactive
(Oh, if the second site above 'doesn't work' you may need a free download of Java from http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp
I understand that chess requires focus and concentration... HA HA HA....Me?!?!?!
the opponent determines how intelligent any game is going to be. a dumb downed opponent is a cake walk, where as......
Is that why sports that require brute strength,and field lawyers,are so popular? Or a player/group, sticks(of asending expense)and a little ball(covered with dimples{to be cute?}and expensive script)is so hard to master? And is that why Beer companies do not sponser Chess Matches? Inquiring minds want to know...
We learned chess as boys from a bedridden cousin of our dad's whom we preferred to think of as an uncle.
Recovering from TB, among other things, he played, through the mail, with accomplished players around the world and it was a big deal to make him use more than a few moves to knock us off.
Early on, my wife and I played so often that the board was left out on its own little table and then, one night, without knowing it, we played our last game.
I couldn't begin to say where that set might be found and even when one of our grandsons developed an interest and joined his school chess club... nothing.
At about three in the morning, eight chess players in Manhattan's Washington Square, erupted into a fight. A chess fight, it had a girlie, flailing, schoolyard quality to it and the policeman sent to break it up was not happy or patient.
When he was unable (his partner was visiting with a long-legged young woman on the corner) to calm things down, he dropped the biggest of them with a short, efficient, ham-fisted right hook to the side of the head and sent them all home.
Some of them already were.
Something about it made me chuckle but when they turned to look, I wasn't there.
Doc Nolan; I was so relieved to read your post... I couldn't play either game. My brain doesn't work that way. My father taught my son to play chess when he was around 3.And my father being my father he didn't give him much of a handicap. It took three years but Adam finally beat my father. They were playing on his boat and Adam jumped off and ran up and down the dock yelling he had won.
My father also like to play with Adam's Lego's hmmmmmmmm
THE KNIGHT: A professional soldier whose job is primariy to protect the rest of the same-colored pieces;
THE QUEEN: The Boss. Behind every great woman, however, there always at least one good little man, maybe more.
RoadYacht: Getting "all lawyered up" is the most expensive least efficient way of problem-solving, and it leaves collateral damage everywhere. Should only be a last resort. In Japan, having to hire a lawyer is a source of shame ..... it implies that you were unwilling or unable to negotiate a solution with dignity & honor sufficient to share with all parties equitably.
In the 6th Grade our teacher taught our class how to play chess. Wait ~ let me rephrase that ~ our teacher TRIED to teach the class how to play chess. I never got it ~ I can barely play checkers. My mind just doesn't quite work the way needed to play such a game. I did however enjoy learning the history about the game & the girl I was paired up with well instead of actually playing chess we discussed more or less what the Queens would be wearing or which historic Queens they were representing. I haven't of that time in almost 20 years.
Two reasons my (maternal) grandfather liked me as a kid: (1) I listened to his stories of wandering all over the West when he was a 'hoof and mouth' inspector for the USDA about the time of WWI, and (2) he always beat me at chess. For better or worse he was a lousy prognosticator since he felt I had a phenomenal future ahead of me. Watching the antics of 'successful people', I'm rather glad I never did become either wealthy or famous. My life as a pawn has been interesting, especially as I've survived on the chessboard of life watching the knights, bishops and rooks crash and burn....watching is what we pawns are good at :-)
Hey, rings90, what DO queens wear? ;-)
Kim and Doc Nolan -- I'm with you! I have always blamed my lack of skill and/or interest in chess (and bridge) on my brain's unwillingness to have to do much thinking when playing a game! A game should be fun, not work . . .
Hey Doc ~ in re-reading that statement maybe I should have re-worded it :)
For the record my Queen was always a traditional Renascience Queen, Nikki's however was more based on what HRH Diana wore that week. (after all it was the mid 80's)
Come to think of it, I never liked playing games unless they were the kind one made up.
Not very competitive i guess. But, boy did I love learning about the times and the history and clothes. . opps, time to go see a client.
Jester: Aren't YOU the same guy who shot down Iceman & Maverick?
1% of the population functions happiest when confronted with extreme difficulty/risk challenges. They to some are fools, ask their ex-wives. They have a dark sense of humor which among peers brings quiet grins, but instructions from many others to either shut up or leave. Thank god that some of them protect the national security of freedom-loving countries. Money is merely a tool to survive, not a priority in and of itself. DARK SIDE, SAME ISSUE: Infamous serial killers, rapists, terrorists often fit the same profiler's radar 1 on 1. Think Osama Bin Laden. Psychopathic deviate, loner, survivor mentality, thrives on situations stressful to 99% of the top 1% of general population. May slip up by leaving subtle clues, but not as a subconscious attempt to be captured, just a taunt to counterinsurgents. When a Royal Marine is confronted by the angel of death smiling at him, he responds by smiling back. Thank god for the rest of us, in "as is - where is" condition. Bobby Fischer {sic.?} may or may not be "normal" with his obsession for chess 24/7/365.
It's Friday and I'm punchdrunk. And so I have to combine Doc's post from above with yesterday's topic of movies.......all I can think of is the Mongo character in Blazing Saddles....a big, burly, dumb cowboy played by ex-football player Alex Karras...
'Mongo just pawn in game of life."
"The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the Universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature and the player on the other side is hidden from us" -Thomas Huxley
Brigid~Is THAT why the Qeens dress so funny in the pride parades?
Chess For Girls?
Feminism and Computer Games
Justine Cassell and Henry Jenkins
Chess for Girls: A Parable for Our Times
A recent Saturday Night Live show (Dec. 6, 1997) featured a pseudocommercial for "Chess for Girls." The skit opens with a brother and sister playing chess; the boy soon moves to checkmate his sibling. The girl replies, "Chess is no fun!" and sweeps the pieces off the board in disgust. An announcer comes on and says, "Don't worry, now there's Chess for Girls!", and the commercial launches into a montage of images: a chessboard filled with doll-like pieces, girls brushing the hair of the queen, girls prancing around with the knights, which are beautiful ponies, the brother exclaiming, "Hey, you can't move like that!", and the pieces driving around in a convertible and relaxing in their beach house.
The issues raised by this parody parallel, and serve to introduce, the issues discussed in this book. It is true that more boys play chess than girls. It is also true that chess teaches skills that are important for other arenas of life--skills such as logical thinking, strategic planning, and memory. It might therefore be argued that girls, because they are not enjoying chess, are also not enjoying the cognitive effects of chess. Should this worry parents and teachers? Should this push educators to "open up chess to girls?" If so, what would this opening up look like? Would we encourage girls to take pleasure in the (often minimally social, and not-always-cool) activity of chess by pointing out the benefits to be gained by chess playing? Or would we start companies designed to bring chess closer to pursuits that are more associated with girls--perhaps, as this parody did, by constructing chess pieces that resemble dolls? Or, finally, would we look into the contexts in which girls might appropriate chess, leaving the rules the same but setting up clubs that had the purpose of beating boys at their own game? Might chess-set companies realize that only 50 percent of the youth population was spending its dollars on chess sets, chess books, and electronic chess teachers and implement advertising campaigns aimed at cultivating girl players? Which of the above three strategies would educators and parents choose, and which strategy would the game industry choose? As cultural theorists, psychologists, and theorists of education, which strateg(ies) would we stand behind, and which strategies would we criticize?
Why does a "Chess for Girls" movement seem absurd, while a movement to bring computer games to girls has evoked such strong allegiances? The difference may stem from the fact that while chess has been around long enough for most parents to be comfortable with it, the computer has not. The personal computer, and digital media in general, have come into our lives very recently. Consequently, our children are more likely than us to see the computer as an essential part of their lives, and we are less likely than our children to be entirely comfortable with the technology. This situation leads naturally to parental discomfort: what is this technology, and what is it doing to/for my children? How do I get my children comfortable with this technology (when I am not) so that they can reap the benefits that I see touted everywhere? In addition, whereas it would be difficult to argue that chess--as it is played today--reproduces and reflects inherently sexist images of women (except through exclusion), there are abundant reasons to judge the video games of today as reaffirming sexist ideologies and circulating misogynistic images. For this reason too, parents may worry about the ubiquity of such technology, knowing that the game console may represent the technological equivalent of a "headstart" program, preparing children for participation in the digital realm, and yet at the same time potentially socializing boys into misogyny and excluding girls from all but the most objectified of positions.
In this volume we have united essays representing diverse points of view on each of the questions posed above: chapters by cultural theorists (Jenkins; Kinder), educational theorists (de Castell and Bryson), developmental psychologists (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield; Kafai), academic technologists (Brunner, Bennett, and Honey; Cassell), computer game industry representatives (Duncan and Gesue; Kelley; Laurel; Martin; McEnany), and female game players (the Game Grrlz). We hope this anthology will encourage all of us to examine our core assumptions about gender and games, and propose different tactical approaches for bridging the digital gender gap. This introduction outlines some of the basic factors motivating a critical analysis of existent video games, and the desire to design new ones, and explores some of the political contradictions that surround the initiative to create girls' games.
-exerpt from Chapter one From Barbie to Mortal Combat
FYI - I've played chess twice in my life. The 1st time my brother won easily. The 2nd time I won playing against my boyfriend. I still recall the thrill of that battle. I think war on a chess board is an exhilarating mental exercise. Otherwise I'm a pacifist at heart. I like the Celtic manner of doing battle. Each side sends out their best warrior on the field and the dispute is settled by the outcome of this contest. So humane. I also like the concept "eat what you kill". Just imagine how this requirement would reduce warfare?
My son is a Game Designer and I had a tour of his workplace - not a female in sight. They do now employ a woman Graphic Artist. Times have changed and my daughter plays D&D and electronic games. She even battles her older brother in an on-line game. GO GIRL!
Brigid -- sorry I missed the SNL piece, but I can envision it! A chess game based on My Little Pony and/or Barbie isn't such a bad idea! Maybe it would make it fun to learn at an early age. If I had learned to play as a child, I may have been more interested later . . .
Bert
The queen is vital for the survival of the lineage. Why else did Henry VIII run through so many wives?
Jester
All my "genius" husbands have played Go as does my Game Designing son. It is a facinating game which I also enjoy.
My dad taught all his children to play Checkers - without a handicap. He also taught me Division. Great memories! I loved the quality time. I also taught my children to play the game!
I am glad tCJ brought up Go, and agree also with what others have posted about it.
I am an adequate chess player, but the appeal of it, if any, is wasted on me. I don't consider it a patrician game or a lofty calling. It doesn't reward a competitive attitude.
Last night on a talk show, Martin Short was recounting a time that he and Steve Martin had gone drinking with Princess Margaret.
As things were winding down. Short asked the Princess, "So, how's the Queen?"
"You mean my sister, my mother, or my husband?"
I know how the pieces move and what needs to occur to win but I am not skilled at all at this game of Kings.
The only thing more boring to my mind (small sized) than playing chess, is watching a chess tournament.
WHAT on earth is that about and WHY?
They shoot horses, don't they?
.....
i thought....my first mistake.....it was more about a line of topics......(.the royal game.)..than the actual board game, although i do like any kind of game, wild or not.
"The story has a lot of opposites such as educated vs uneducated, gentleman vs peasant, mania vs calmness, smart vs stupid, quick vs slow."
park 4? who shoots horses?
In The Wizard of Oz, the dude behind the curtain controls every string & lever. The players respond only to illusions of actual power. By the way, that movie was released 70 years ago this week. Happy anniversary, Dorothy, Toto, Cowardly Lion, Tin Woodman, Scarecrow..... Don't give ANYONE intellectual property rewrite approval....you ALREADY colorized 90% of the flick. And Toto: I'm betting you can kick Asta's arse any time....
Bert:
Do you like "Dark Side of the Rainbow"?
When I was a young boy I was introduced to Chess at the school yard by a big kid from the high school. All of us put away our jack knives for a while that summer to play chess. We learned the basics, but none of us, I recall, fell in love with the game. Jack knives, pinky balls and sticks, and going to the beach were just too much of a draw for us to truly learn the game. Since then I've always admired those that took the game so seriously. But now it's motorcycles and other distractions that keep me from playing the game. Maybe in retirement I'll take it up again.
one of my daughter-in-laws older brothers, is (what we as a collective, although i don't know if it's politically correct to call ) developmentally disabled. in many ways he cannot function on an "ordinary" nor "normal" level. he's 34, lives with his mother. works everyday at the "group store" and he wears corrective eye glasses. that being said, he is a mental memory machine when it comes to, sport statistics, player information, teams, etc. when he is informed of our rules to any game, it takes just a few, for him to "memorize" and win an "abnormal" amount of games. he just bought a nice pool table, and has every angle down, and can win almost every game against us "normal" people. i've yet to get a streak of more than two wins with him in any game....that's over a decade now. i so enjoy his view of life too! he's happy, upbeat, doesn't know a thing about politicians or money...the things the dimension we live in seem to be unimportant. it's like having a fan of fresh air everytime i'm around him. i'll look him up tomorrow and see if he can show me something new on the chess board, again. a different perspective perhaps. they are just games.
cuukoo? that's a title of a movie, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They" -- I think it was about a dance marathon. The meaning being that when a horse is in pain and cannot recover, he's not left to suffer, he gets shot.
I used it to mean that watching a chess tourney was so painful the watchers ought to be mercifully shot.
Settle down girl! I don't mean your horse, and I don't mean it literally at all. It's just a saying.
I should have thought before I mentioned "horses" and "shoot" with you in the same room -- shame on me shame on me!<smile>
Insert at the end of first paragraph: and the dance marathoners have to keep on dancing until they drop dead or almost dead.
After 879 hours of dancing the contest was called with 20 couples remaining! (in "They Shoot Horses Don't They?")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shoot_Horses,_Don%27t_They%3F_(film)
Gives new meaning to the question "Do you wanna dance?" doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shoot_Horses,_Don%27t_They%3F_(film)
a better link to the info on the film.
Oh forget it.
It's that time again, when nothing works. Must be the end of the week....
i like it!
I played quite a bit of chess a few years ago. I was trying to write a book where chess was a main character. I had to study some of the great games, and even incorporated some of them into the text. I got fairly good, at least good enough to beat a few people at the coffeeshop.
I haven't played much since then. Nobody really does around here. It's rather sad.
Mr. P is heading to his retreat...This is where I'm headed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4mU8ZqMZPU&feature=related
october 15, 2:00 a.m. et/tcm p4, setting the dvr now
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=22801
cuukoo, you are positively brilliant, m'lady. And isn't TCM smart to show that movie just because we were talking about it here on the EYE?
Well....great. 2 a.m. Not so great, but I guess it's time to dust off the dvr. I've never seen it, nor have I read the book.
Good find, cuukoo!
Well, because of the link at the top of the page, I have now purchased a hardcover copy of The Royal Game. The synopsis was quite intriguing and that website that shares its name with a certain rainforest seems to have everything. Purchased used of course, but still, they seem to have everything.
I'm ashamed to admit that although my young grandchildren all play chess, I simply do not ....they offered to teach me with their Harry Potter pieces, but, you know..........We did have a good time on one of our trips to the beach when we stopped at a game store with a huge chess set on the sidewalk outside. The pieces were larger than the kids and yet they played -- had a whole crowd around us then.
I played chess when in high school, even started a chess club, but I wasn't that crazy about it. It seemed pointless.
I liked backgammon and go, cribbage and Risk and Monopoly and Clue also. But what REALLY got me going was shooting pool. Skill, society, fun! I got fairly good at it, and it was almost all BOYS!
I've found that it is still fun, especially when I need LESSONS!
House Guest tells how his maternal grandfather, a self-proclaimed chess master, took pleasure in defeating and humiliating all comers to a point where he was despised and avoided.
A daughter-in-law and granddaughter took the game and his game seriously enough to make themselves first difficult and then, impossible to beat. The first time they hung a loss on him, was the last time he played.
Luckily, he lasted long enough to outlive his killer reputation... mostly.
H.G., off playing in his last bridge tournament, is wishing that he had withheld that announcement until after. Some of his friendships, it seems, were based solely on his skills and his decision to walk away has not gone over well.
It is that games can be and are taken too seriously that made him do it. That, and he wants to spend more time with his dad.
The bridge people, whose identities are tied to the game, don't believe he can do it but I do.
I think I'm falling for House Guest just as hard as I fell for Stoney.
Wonder why....
My very favorite game is playing checkers with my grandson. He always makes up the rules as the game goes on and is still undefeated ...... which is exactly as it should be.
PL: I cannot imagine you with a grandson. Oh but I bet you're fun!