Comments on: Salieri down the Rabbit-Hole

By: noyb

noyb — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:46:17 +0000

Well said! I don’t think I’ve ever read another article on chess that captures it’s essence so well. Bravo!

By: Michel83

Michel83 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:28:17 +0000

@ LOL & CAL

LOL, I have the feeling you didn’t read my posts. I actually said that I have no interest in insulting anybody and pointed out that my first post was supposed to be a joke (bad one if you want) emphasized by a “:p”-smiley. I was just trying to poke CAL and didn’t know it would be taken so seriously. So no worries, I have nonintention to insult you either. Funny though that you critisize me for something (personal attacks) you are doing yourself.

And now I sincerely wish you guys a good evening. What a waste of energy and rush of negative feelings because of one harmless ironic joke- I will learn from this.

CAL, what’s the Heraclitus-quote? Just out of interest.

By: CAL|Daniel

CAL|Daniel — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:17:58 +0000

very well said Arne.
@Len Awesome! I have seen only two other songs on chess before and neither was this good!

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:40:49 +0000

Hahaha that’s absolutely brilliant, Len, thank you very much!

By: Len Ganley

Len Ganley — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:15:09 +0000

Best, possibly the only, song about online chess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzKdtMGBphY

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:09:01 +0000

The funny thing with many comments to this article, pointing out how I missed ‘the obvious point’ etc., is that I mostly AGREE with them! That said, I think these people don’t seem to realize that there are more ways to look at chess than just from a logical, rational ‘i must play the best moves otherwise I won’t improve’ point of view. I mean, of course improving one’s chess is a very noble and obvious motivation for playing.
But, as in art, I think in chess it’s also possible to have a more ‘postmodernist’ or ‘avant-garde’ attitude (I think postmodernist art is often quite ugly, still, it’s interesting, too, if you open your mind to it). In my opinion, chess is also a reflection of human psychology and the human mind can be quite irrational. To make a comparision: chess is not only Tolstoy, but also Dostoyevski. Not only Steven Spielberg but also David Lynch. Not only Rembrandt, but also Picasso. And not only Mozart, but also Miles Davis.
That’s why I think it’s a little one-sided to judge moves like Rb8 strictly on their objective value only, just like it’s one-sided to judge a man’s behaviour by a guide of good manners. It just won’t get you very far in life.
It’s interesting people get so angry because others like bullet or other forms of ’stupid’ chess. In my opinion it shows a deep fear for the unknown and the irrational, not only in chess but in life in general. That’s not a condemnation but – for me – just an interesting obeservation about chess players. I may write about it again on another occasion.

By: CAL|Daniel

CAL|Daniel — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:37:56 +0000

LOL@Johan. I love how you say in the same sentence that you don’t insult people with the very sentence before is AN insult. You have no honor sir. I did not paraphrase Voltaire; I paraphrased Heraclitus. It is not a funny line but a quite gem of truth that has been retold many since. It is too bad you don’t understand mine or my only friend’s points but that is okay… sit in darkness and never see the light again.

By: Johan

Johan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:32:42 +0000

Chess is indeed a beautiful, deep and complex game. Keeping an open mind is a quality that will bring one more progress (and fun) than a blind following of dogmas. I wish I had the courage to play 4..,Rb8. I’ve played 1.f3 on several occasions (followed by g3,Nh3 an Nf2) which not only gave me some points but also some fun. It is not in the same league as Rb8 but it goes against several opening principles. I am not afraid to repeat it.

The reason I challenged CAL|Daniel a little was mainly because of his funny (at least in my eyes) remark “The enemy of great is the satisfaction of good.” In my eyes this is based on a misinterpretation of Voltaire’s “le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” which means that the little step from good to the best can take too much effort to make it worthwile. Because I think this makes no sense in relation to Arne’s remarks I wrote my comments. But maybe I’m wrong and there’s another explanation that CAL|Daniel could give.

There’s nothing in Lol@Rb8 explanation of CAL|Daniel’s comments that I agree with, but since he is the quickly-shout-something-and-run-type there is no need to react.

I never have the intention to insult anybody and I don’t think I’ve done that. When somebody uses strong words and obviously expects others to take that like a man, that person shouldn’t be surprised if he is treated the same way.

By: lol@Rb8

lol@Rb8 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:24:51 +0000

CAL’s point is quite obvious to even the most casual observer. You don’t have to strive to be the best ever!! – simply to want to improve yourself to the best you can be. By playing garbage opening moves, you may still have an enjoyable game of chess but you can’t improve. You are limiting your potential and your understanding with dumb moves like these. Of course all such moves are playable at lightning/blitz time controls … however I would doubt you would play them in a FIDE rated event where both rating points and prize money (not to mention your dignity) is on the line. To think of it …. Rb8?! Giving away a free tempo for no reason, you play move that does not develop. It goes against all opening principles ever developed or played by any of the great players let alone mediocre players.

Interesting that you guys have such an insulting nature on this site? Do you enjoy talking down to others? Or do you attack them personally because you cannot understand/logically refute their positions? I am sure that Johan and Michel83 will now attack me too for defending CAL… but the lucky part for me is I won’t return to see their insults.

By: Michel83

Michel83 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:40 +0000

@ CALDaniel

Only because many people make the same point it doesn’t make it more the “truth”, it’s still subjective. People disagreeing with you don’t automatically “miss out on the obvious”, they might understand your point and still disagree.

But I have no interest in joining your conversations which have the sole purpose of finding out who manages to look more important and who is better in talking down to others; that’s a pretty boring game.

But let me point out I was not meaning to be rude, that’s why I added a ” :p ” at the end of my last post. Smileys mostly indicate “I’m kidding”, I guess that’s also known buy important serious people like you guys. So although my “rude sarcasm has been noted” you can take me off your blacklist and cheer up.

I’m out. Enjoy your conversations.