Fischer or Lasker • page 6/6 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

@justiniano565 the composer and pianist Prokofiev won against Capablanca in a simul and against Tartakower in a match. Tartakower latter wrote in a magazine that he considered Prokofiev as a "Chess Master" and annotated the game he lost against the composer.

lizani

@IamNOTamod said ^

Will @kindaspongey stop asking semi-rhetorical questions and be so kind as to present their own thoughts on the subject?

Isn't his amorphous nature implicit in the name?

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/RodrFpJF) > Will @kindaspongey stop asking semi-rhetorical questions and be so kind as to present their own thoughts on the subject? Isn't his amorphous nature implicit in the name?

IM justiniano565

@CSKA_Moscou said ^

@justiniano565

I knew that Prokofiev was a chess player but I ignored thta he won Capablanca and Tartakover in sumul games.

We could speak about Philidor too. He became famous after play 2 or 3 , I cannot remember now, blindfold simul chess games in second half of XVIII century.

@CSKA_Moscou said [^](/forum/redirect/post/y4JUj8ru) > @justiniano565 I knew that Prokofiev was a chess player but I ignored thta he won Capablanca and Tartakover in sumul games. We could speak about Philidor too. He became famous after play 2 or 3 , I cannot remember now, blindfold simul chess games in second half of XVIII century.

tpr

Here is the picture of the 5 winners of Saint Petersburg 1914, Lasker seated left.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournoi_d%27%C3%A9checs_de_Saint-P%C3%A9tersbourg_1914#/media/Fichier:Cinq_premiers_du_Tournoi_d'%C3%A9checs_de_Saint-P%C3%A9tersbourg_1914.jpg

Here is the picture of the 5 winners of Saint Petersburg 1914, Lasker seated left. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournoi_d%27%C3%A9checs_de_Saint-P%C3%A9tersbourg_1914#/media/Fichier:Cinq_premiers_du_Tournoi_d'%C3%A9checs_de_Saint-P%C3%A9tersbourg_1914.jpg

kindaspongey edited

@tpr said in #36:

... About change in chess:
'In chess the tactics may change but the strategic fundamental principles are always the same, so that Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind now.' - Capablanca, 1934

@tpr said in #41:

'It will be as good a hundred years from now'

That is until 2034

'as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present'

That is fundamental.

Is there any reason to believe that Capablanca's attitude about "Fundamentals" was intended to apply to all of chess thinking at any level? In any event, after 1942, wasn't Capablanca rather quiet on the matter?

@tpr said in #41:

... Modern openings ...

"... Studying the great masters of the past is perhaps especially beneficial when it comes to the middlegame. ... Over the past 150 years, chess has evolved rapidly, especially when it comes to understanding the positional aspects of the game. ..." - Improve Your Chess (2009) by GM Lars Bo Hansen

@IamNOTamod said in #49:

Will @kindaspongey stop asking semi-rhetorical questions and be so kind as to present their own thoughts on the subject?

"We have NO DATA for what happens after more than a century of time travel by strong chess players." - kindaspongey (#24)

@lizani said in #52:

... Isn't his amorphous nature implicit in the name?

Well, I am only kindaspongey.
(The iceberg encounter was about 5 hours ago.)

@tpr said in #36: > ... About change in chess: > 'In chess the tactics may change but the strategic fundamental principles are always the same, so that Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind now.' - Capablanca, 1934 @tpr said in #41: > 'It will be as good a hundred years from now' > * That is until 2034 > > 'as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present' > * That is fundamental. Is there any reason to believe that Capablanca's attitude about "Fundamentals" was intended to apply to all of chess thinking at any level? In any event, after 1942, wasn't Capablanca rather quiet on the matter? @tpr said in #41: > ... Modern openings ... "... Studying the great masters of the past is perhaps especially beneficial when it comes to the middlegame. ... Over the past 150 years, chess has evolved rapidly, especially when it comes to understanding the positional aspects of the game. ..." - Improve Your Chess (2009) by GM Lars Bo Hansen @IamNOTamod said in #49: > Will @kindaspongey stop asking semi-rhetorical questions and be so kind as to present their own thoughts on the subject? "We have NO DATA for what happens after more than a century of time travel by strong chess players." - kindaspongey (#24) @lizani said in #52: > ... Isn't his amorphous nature implicit in the name? Well, I am only kindaspongey. (The iceberg encounter was about 5 hours ago.)