A Quote by Mikhail Botvinnik
I claim that nothing else is so effective in encouraging the growth of chess strength as such independent analysis, both of the games of the great players and your own.
Related Quotes
By all means examine the games of the great chess players, but don't swallow them whole. Their games are valuable not for their separate moves, but for their vision of chess, their way of thinking.
For young players, their minds are not overloaded. I am 54 with four kids and I do many other things. Even if I stopped everything else, spent months working just on chess, for a long match against most of the top players, a classical match, six hours, say, I don't stand a chance. I have a better chance in shorter matches. Rapid is 25 minutes, or blitz events where you have five minutes to make a move, or bullet games, where it is one minute. For blitz, five-minutes chess, I would be top ten, top five. But longer games, no chance.
By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery.
Chess, which exists predominantly in two dimensions, is one of the world's most difficult games. Three-dimensional chess is an invitation to insanity. But human relationships, even of the simplest order, are like a kind of four-dimensional chess, a game whose pieces and positions change subtly and inexorably between moves, whose players stare dumbly while their powerful positions deteriorate into hopeless predicaments and while improbable combinations suddenly become inevitable. To make matters worse, some games are open to any number of players, and all sides are expected to win.
I used to play a lot of chess and competitive chess and study chess and as you get to the grandmasters and learn their styles when you start copying their games like the way they express themselves through... The way Kasparov or Bobby Fischer expresses themselves through a game of chess is it's astonishing. You can show a chess master one of their games and they'll say "Yeah, that is done by that player."
Though most people love to look at the games of the great attacking masters, some of the most successful players in history have been the quiet positional players. They slowly grind you down by taking away your space, tying up your pieces, and leaving you with virtually nothing to do!
I am most challenged by playing cash games against the world's top players. These games force me to think several moves in advance, like in a game of chess. And though I also find tournaments fun to play, they just don't provide the constant brain buzz that cash game players crave.
Like Dvoretsky, I think that (all other things being equal), the analytical method of studying chess must give you a colossal advantage over the chess pragmatist, and that there can be no certainty in chess without analysis. I personally acquired these views from my sessions with Mikhail Botvinnik, and they laid the foundations of my chess-playing life.
Political analysis is full of chess metaphors, reflecting an old tradition of seeing games as models of physical and social reality.
The Internet is the first technology since the printing press which could lower the cost of a great education and, in doing so, make that cost-benefit analysis much easier for most students. It could allow American schools to service twice as many students as they do now, and in ways that are both effective and cost-effective.
Baseball and golf have a lot of things in common, including the fact that players in both games love hitting for power. However, in both sports, trying to do so strictly with muscle strength doesn't work very well. In fact, I see a lot of guys in both baseball and golf struggle when they try to swing with tight arms.
There is nothing more exciting than playing in a building with the college vibe. It's something that I wanted to be a part of. This doesn't exist anywhere else in the league. It's a great tool to help us keep great players and bring in incredible players.
Chess strength in general and chess strength in a specific match are by no means one and the same thing.
If we can make great games for PS3 players... how many PS3 players are out there? If we can make great games for everybody, that's a much bigger service. There's no reason I shouldn't do that.
I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. A lot of people have come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavor. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorisation and prearrangement like it is today.
The concept of 'talent' is formed under completely abstract criteria, having nothing in common with reality. But the reality is such that I don't understand chess as a whole. But then again no one understands chess in its entirety. Perhaps talent is something else, in chess it is conditionality.
Related Authors
Aron Nimzowitsch Quotes
Danish
Chess Player
Boris Gelfand Quotes
Israeli
Chess Player
David Bronstein Quotes
Russian
Chess Player
Emanuel Lasker Quotes
German
Chess Player
Eugene Znosko-Borovsky Quotes
Russian
Chess Player
Irving Chernev Quotes
American
Chess Player
Jan Timman Quotes
Dutch
Chess Player
Jose Raul Capablanca Quotes
Cuban
Chess Player
Mikhail Tal Quotes
Latvian
Chess Player
Paul Morphy Quotes
American
Chess Player
Richard Reti Quotes
Czechoslovakian
Chess Player
Samuel Reshevsky Quotes
American
Chess Player
Siegbert Tarrasch Quotes
German
Chess Player
Vasily Smyslov Quotes
Russian
Chess Player