Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny

A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
powerful nostalgia.

https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 7:05:34 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny

I was confused by one thing on that page.

I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by Roger Zelazny
that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it up, I found that
it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
in the _same_ year.

John Savard

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
>
> A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> powerful nostalgia.
>
> https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> --

Beer! Bars!

--
Kevin R

Quadibloc wrote:

> I was confused by one thing on that page.
>
> I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by Roger Zelazny
> that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it up, I found that
> it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
> in the _same_ year.

Oooo... I remember that Zelazny story you're thinking of! A guy was in a bar, wasn't he? And challenged to a chess game by an ancient Titan... :)

Per one young reader, so much chess. But is it possible role-playing has surpassed it in recent stories?
Not just more role-playing games than chess in recent stories, but that the balance of the total has shifted over the recent decades?

As a thought, what sf stories have involved other traditional games? Tic-Tac-Toe, Checkers, Go?
Poker, solitaire, bridge? (The last has at least a format for recording the moves.)
Backgammon, uh... craps, Yahtzee? Which raises the question of how much detail can go into describing the play without violating copyright on the rules.

--
-Jack

On 07/11/2022 09.16, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 7:05:34 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
>> Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
>
> I was confused by one thing on that page.
>
> I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by Roger Zelazny
> that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it up, I found that
> it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
> in the _same_ year.

Since the reference to it on James' page says:

"[...] Poul Anderson's _The Saturn Game_ [...]"

it's pretty hard to understand how you could have thought he was
talking about a Zelazny work.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.

In article <tkdo47$3tush$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 07/11/2022 09.16, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 7:05:34 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by
>Roger Zelazny
>>
>> I was confused by one thing on that page.
>>
>> I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by
>Roger Zelazny
>> that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it
>up, I found that
>> it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
>> in the _same_ year.
>
>Since the reference to it on James' page says:
>
> "[...] Poul Anderson's _The Saturn Game_ [...]"
>
>it's pretty hard to understand how you could have thought he was
>talking about a Zelazny work.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating Savard's intelligence.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
>
> A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> powerful nostalgia.
>
> https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation

That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900 indicates
a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players, but
as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
and one day perhaps herself).

Of course, now we can find the game online:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195

The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
"Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575

John Brunner's "The squares of the city" is based on a game, but
the moves are not given in the text:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036356

All three games involve the Ruy Lopez, oddly enough.

William Hyde

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 7:12:28 AM UTC-7, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 07/11/2022 09.16, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 7:05:34 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> >> Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> >
> > I was confused by one thing on that page.
> >
> > I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by Roger Zelazny
> > that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it up, I found that
> > it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
> > in the _same_ year.
> Since the reference to it on James' page says:
>
> "[...] Poul Anderson's _The Saturn Game_ [...]"
>
> it's pretty hard to understand how you could have thought he was
> talking about a Zelazny work.

Ouch! I guess I just skimmed past that, or forgot about it.

John Savard

In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd-8bd1-cf5579393527n@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> >
> > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> > powerful nostalgia.
> >
> > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
>
>
> That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> indicates
> a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
> but
> as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> and one day perhaps herself).
>
> Of course, now we can find the game online:
>
> https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
>
> The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
>
> https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
>

What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
(<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> > >
> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> > > powerful nostalgia.
> > >
> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> >
> >
> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> > indicates
> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
> > but
> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> > and one day perhaps herself).
> >
> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
> >
> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
> >
> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
> >
> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
> >
> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.

I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read. Good catch.

Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.

Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?

William Hyde

In article <80708995-1e7f-4368-ad1c-ffa81408eaa2n@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
>> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
>> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
>> > >
>> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
>> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
>> > > powerful nostalgia.
>> > >
>> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
>> >
>> >
>> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
>> > indicates
>> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
>> > but
>> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
>> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
>> > and one day perhaps herself).
>> >
>> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
>> >
>> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
>> >
>> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
>> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
>> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
>> >
>> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
>> >
>> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
>> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
>> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
>> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
>
>I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
>Good catch.
>
>Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
>
>Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
>

I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a "Romantic style"
of chess:

This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> >> > >
> >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> >> > > powerful nostalgia.
> >> > >
> >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> >> > indicates
> >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
> >> > but
> >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> >> > and one day perhaps herself).
> >> >
> >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
> >> >
> >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
> >> >
> >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
> >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
> >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
> >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
> >
> >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
> >Good catch.
> >
> >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
> >
> >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
> >
> I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a "Romantic style"
> of chess:
>
> This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
> romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
> were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
> and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
> would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
> was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
> attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
> even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.

The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
and fate.

Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant attacks succeeded
either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been acquired before
the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to acquire such
advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too bad. An
attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
defensive games in this way.

Or as one romantic said:

"Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket who takes a pawn
and keeps it".

Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.

I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
with:

Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.

Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
but backed by better judgment.

World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
school.

Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
hypermodernism.

(0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are distinguished by names.

(1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.

(2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
prevail.

(3) Bobby Fischer, of course.

William Hyde

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:14:26 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
> > William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> > >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> > >> > >
> > >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> > >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> > >> > > powerful nostalgia.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> > >> > indicates
> > >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
> > >> > but
> > >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> > >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> > >> > and one day perhaps herself).
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
> > >> >
> > >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> > >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> > >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
> > >> >
> > >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
> > >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
> > >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
> > >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
> > >
> > >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
> > >Good catch.
> > >
> > >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
> > >
> > >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
> > >
> > I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a "Romantic style"
> > of chess:
> >
> > This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
> > romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
> > were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
> > and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
> > would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
> > was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
> > attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
> > even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
> The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
> will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
> via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
> and fate.
>
> Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant attacks succeeded
> either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been acquired before
> the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to acquire such
> advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too bad. An
> attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
> defensive games in this way.
>
> Or as one romantic said:
>
> "Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket who takes a pawn
> and keeps it".
>
> Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
> not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.
>
> I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
> with:
>
> Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.
>
> Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
> you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
> style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
> players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
> style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
> exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
> with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
> but backed by better judgment.
>
> World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
> a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
> school.
>
> Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
> would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
> hypermodernism.
>
> (0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are distinguished by names.
>
> (1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
> the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
> a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.
>
> (2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
> prevail.
>
> (3) Bobby Fischer, of course.

What does "material" mean in this context?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

In article <5413d2cb-2c62-43d9-8071-37e90aae06a7n@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
>> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by
>Roger Zelazny
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
>> >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
>> >> > > powerful nostalgia.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
>> >> > indicates
>> >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's
>best players,
>> >> > but
>> >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
>> >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
>> >> > and one day perhaps herself).
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
>> >> >
>> >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
>> >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
>> >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
>> >> >
>> >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
>> >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
>> >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
>> >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
>> >
>> >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
>> >Good catch.
>> >
>> >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
>> >
>> >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
>> >
>> I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a
>"Romantic style"
>> of chess:
>>
>> This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
>> romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
>> were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
>> and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
>> would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
>> was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
>> attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
>> even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
>
>The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
>will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
>via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
>and fate.
>
>Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant
>attacks succeeded
>either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been
>acquired before
>the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to
>acquire such
>advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too
>bad. An
>attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
>defensive games in this way.
>
>Or as one romantic said:
>
>"Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket
>who takes a pawn
>and keeps it".
>
>Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
>not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.
>
>I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
>with:
>
>Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.
>
>Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
>you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
>style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
>players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
>style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
>exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
>with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
>but backed by better judgment.
>
>World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
>a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
>school.
>
>Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
>would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
>hypermodernism.
>
>(0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are
>distinguished by names.
>
>(1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
>the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
>a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.
>
>(2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
>prevail.
>
>(3) Bobby Fischer, of course.
>
>William Hyde

Interesting.

Since nobody can beat a computer now, have the chess programs
developed a distinctive style when playing each other?
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:27:12 PM UTC-7, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:14:26 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:

> > with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,

> What does "material" mean in this context?

If you mean in the quoted line I left standing above, "material" means pieces on
the board; that is, like a player during the Romantic era of chess, he is willing
to sacrifice pieces of pawns, presumably to obtain a positional advantage that will
be more important than having extra men.

John Savard

In article <a1231e00-674a-405e-b202-a06aadb0a1abn@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> I was confused by one thing on that page.
>>
>> I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by Roger Zelazny
>> that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it up, I
>found that
>> it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
>> in the _same_ year.
>
>Oooo... I remember that Zelazny story you're thinking of! A guy was in
>a bar, wasn't he? And challenged to a chess game by an ancient Titan...
>:)
>
>Per one young reader, so much chess. But is it possible role-playing
>has surpassed it in recent stories?
>Not just more role-playing games than chess in recent stories, but that
>the balance of the total has shifted over the recent decades?
>
>As a thought, what sf stories have involved other traditional games?
>Tic-Tac-Toe, Checkers, Go?
>Poker, solitaire, bridge? (The last has at least a format for recording
>the moves.)
>Backgammon, uh... craps, Yahtzee? Which raises the question of how much
>detail can go into describing the play without violating copyright on
>the rules.

(Hal Heydt)
I'm not a bridge player, but from what I've heard, many of the
spell names in Randall Garrett's Lord d'Arcy stories are bridge
terms.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:27:12 PM UTC-5, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:14:26 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > > In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > > >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> > > >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> > > >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> > > >> > > powerful nostalgia.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> > > >> > indicates
> > > >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
> > > >> > but
> > > >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> > > >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> > > >> > and one day perhaps herself).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> > > >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> > > >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
> > > >> >
> > > >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
> > > >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
> > > >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
> > > >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
> > > >
> > > >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
> > > >Good catch.
> > > >
> > > >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
> > > >
> > > >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
> > > >
> > > I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a "Romantic style"
> > > of chess:
> > >
> > > This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
> > > romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
> > > were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
> > > and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
> > > would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
> > > was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
> > > attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
> > > even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
> > The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
> > will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
> > via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
> > and fate.
> >
> > Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant attacks succeeded
> > either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been acquired before
> > the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to acquire such
> > advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too bad. An
> > attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
> > defensive games in this way.
> >
> > Or as one romantic said:
> >
> > "Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket who takes a pawn
> > and keeps it".
> >
> > Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
> > not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
> > with:
> >
> > Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.
> >
> > Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
> > you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
> > style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
> > players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
> > style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
> > exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
> > with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
> > but backed by better judgment.
> >
> > World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
> > a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
> > school.
> >
> > Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
> > would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
> > hypermodernism.
> >
> > (0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are distinguished by names.
> >
> > (1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
> > the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
> > a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.
> >
> > (2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
> > prevail.
> >
> > (3) Bobby Fischer, of course.
> What does "material" mean in this context?

Sorry, should have been more clear. Material in this case refers to pieces and pawns.

If you sacrifice, as Anderssen did, the final position shows a much smaller force triumphing
over a larger one, part of the appeal of the romantic style.

William Hyde

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:01:54 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <5413d2cb-2c62-43d9...@googlegroups.com>,
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> >> >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by
> >Roger Zelazny
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> >> >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> >> >> > > powerful nostalgia.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> >> >> > indicates
> >> >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's
> >best players,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> >> >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> >> >> > and one day perhaps herself).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> >> >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> >> >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
> >> >> >
> >> >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
> >> >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
> >> >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
> >> >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
> >> >
> >> >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
> >> >Good catch.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
> >> >
> >> >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
> >> >
> >> I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a
> >"Romantic style"
> >> of chess:
> >>
> >> This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
> >> romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
> >> were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
> >> and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
> >> would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
> >> was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
> >> attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
> >> even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
> >
> >The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
> >will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
> >via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
> >and fate.
> >
> >Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant
> >attacks succeeded
> >either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been
> >acquired before
> >the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to
> >acquire such
> >advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too
> >bad. An
> >attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
> >defensive games in this way.
> >
> >Or as one romantic said:
> >
> >"Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket
> >who takes a pawn
> >and keeps it".
> >
> >Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
> >not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.
> >
> >I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
> >with:
> >
> >Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.
> >
> >Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
> >you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
> >style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
> >players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
> >style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
> >exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
> >with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
> >but backed by better judgment.
> >
> >World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
> >a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
> >school.
> >
> >Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
> >would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
> >hypermodernism.
> >
> >(0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are
> >distinguished by names.
> >
> >(1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
> >the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
> >a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.
> >
> >(2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
> >prevail.
> >
> >(3) Bobby Fischer, of course.
> >
> >William Hyde
> Interesting.
>
> Since nobody can beat a computer now, have the chess programs
> developed a distinctive style when playing each other?

Their style looks to me to be utterly pragmatic. They certainly play dynamically, but with such a command of tiny
details in long variations that it is hard to talk about a style.

When I play Stockfish (a strong and freely available program) at a lower level it seems to play in the
dynamic style, letting me grab a pawn in return for positional compensation, but it isn't strong enough
to make use of that compensation. At level eight, on the other hand it very much knows what
to do.

William Hyde

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 11:37:24 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <a1231e00-674a-405e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> I was confused by one thing on that page.
> >>
> >> I thought that "The Saturn Game" was another short story by Roger Zelazny
> >> that also won a Hugo in some other year. But after looking it up, I
> >found that
> >> it was a story by Poul Anderson which was at least nominated for a Hugo
> >> in the _same_ year.
> >
> >Oooo... I remember that Zelazny story you're thinking of! A guy was in
> >a bar, wasn't he? And challenged to a chess game by an ancient Titan...
> >:)
> >
> >Per one young reader, so much chess. But is it possible role-playing
> >has surpassed it in recent stories?
> >Not just more role-playing games than chess in recent stories, but that
> >the balance of the total has shifted over the recent decades?
> >
> >As a thought, what sf stories have involved other traditional games?
> >Tic-Tac-Toe, Checkers, Go?
> >Poker, solitaire, bridge? (The last has at least a format for recording
> >the moves.)
> >Backgammon, uh... craps, Yahtzee? Which raises the question of how much
> >detail can go into describing the play without violating copyright on
> >the rules.
> (Hal Heydt)
> I'm not a bridge player, but from what I've heard, many of the
> spell names in Randall Garrett's Lord d'Arcy stories are bridge
> terms.

There's some bridge in "Farnham's Freehold", though on the whole Heinlein made more chess
references.

Aside from novels written by bridge players (Matt Granovetter's "I shot my bridge parter" and
sequels) the most accurate and lengthy description of a bridge game I've seen is in
George MacDonald Frazier's "Mr American", featuring Edward VIII as a partner. That was
auction bridge, though. Contract bridge was yet to be invented.

William Hyde

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:53:45 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:27:12 PM UTC-5, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:14:26 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> > > In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> > > >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
>> > > >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
>> > > >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
>> > > >> > > powerful nostalgia.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
>> > > >> > indicates
>> > > >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
>> > > >> > but
>> > > >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
>> > > >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
>> > > >> > and one day perhaps herself).
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
>> > > >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
>> > > >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
>> > > >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
>> > > >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
>> > > >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
>> > > >
>> > > >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
>> > > >Good catch.
>> > > >
>> > > >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
>> > > >
>> > > >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
>> > > >
>> > > I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a "Romantic style"
>> > > of chess:
>> > >
>> > > This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
>> > > romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
>> > > were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
>> > > and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
>> > > would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
>> > > was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
>> > > attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
>> > > even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
>> > The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
>> > will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
>> > via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
>> > and fate.
>> >
>> > Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant attacks succeeded
>> > either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been acquired before
>> > the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to acquire such
>> > advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too bad. An
>> > attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
>> > defensive games in this way.
>> >
>> > Or as one romantic said:
>> >
>> > "Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket who takes a pawn
>> > and keeps it".
>> >
>> > Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
>> > not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
>> > with:
>> >
>> > Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.
>> >
>> > Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
>> > you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
>> > style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
>> > players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
>> > style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
>> > exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
>> > with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
>> > but backed by better judgment.
>> >
>> > World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
>> > a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
>> > school.
>> >
>> > Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
>> > would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
>> > hypermodernism.
>> >
>> > (0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are distinguished by names.
>> >
>> > (1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
>> > the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
>> > a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.
>> >
>> > (2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
>> > prevail.
>> >
>> > (3) Bobby Fischer, of course.
>> What does "material" mean in this context?
>
>Sorry, should have been more clear. Material in this case refers to pieces and pawns.
>
>If you sacrifice, as Anderssen did, the final position shows a much smaller force triumphing
>over a larger one, part of the appeal of the romantic style.

Well, it does if you /win/.

If you lose, though, things look a bit different.
n --
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 12:18:43 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:53:45 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:27:12 PM UTC-5, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:14:26 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:26:31 PM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> > > In article <80708995-1e7f-4368...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> > > >> In article <45fc821c-044c-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > >> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> >> > > >> > > Young People Read Old Hugo Finalists: Unicorn Variation by Roger Zelazny
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > A finalist selected for YPROHF over the alternatives because the
> >> > > >> > > backstory amused me. I have to say that cover sure triggers some
> >> > > >> > > powerful nostalgia.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/unicorn-variation
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > That Zelazny chose a rather obscure game, and a draw at that, from 1900
> >> > > >> > indicates
> >> > > >> > a fair depth of chess culture. Pillsbury was one of America's best players,
> >> > > >> > but
> >> > > >> > as he died young there has never been a comprehensive study of his
> >> > > >> > games (the best such studies are generally by the player himself,
> >> > > >> > and one day perhaps herself).
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Of course, now we can find the game online:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1100195
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The only other complete game in an SF work that comes to mind is from
> >> > > >> > "Pebble in the Sky". Asimov said he was tired of vague descriptions of
> >> > > >> > chess games in books, so he gave a complete game:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1090575
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
> >> > > >> (<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
> >> > > >> but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
> >> > > >> the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I'm surprised to find that there is an Anderson story I have not read.
> >> > > >Good catch.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Of course, given my age I may be equally surprised next time.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Was it coincidence that Anderson wrote about a game won by Anderssen?
> >> > > >
> >> > > I was a bit surprised to read in the WP entry that there was a "Romantic style"
> >> > > of chess:
> >> > >
> >> > > This game is acclaimed as an exemplar of the 19th-century
> >> > > romantic style of chess, where rapid development and attack
> >> > > were considered the most effective way to win, many gambits
> >> > > and countergambits were offered (and not accepting them
> >> > > would be considered slightly ungentlemanly), and material
> >> > > was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid
> >> > > attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review,
> >> > > even if some of the moves are no longer considered optimal.
> >> > The Romantic idea was that humans could by force of intellect and
> >> > will control the course of the game, with the better player ideally winning
> >> > via brilliant attack. Similar to the romantic idea of will dominating nature
> >> > and fate.
> >> >
> >> > Steinitz threw cold water on this by demonstrating that all brilliant attacks succeeded
> >> > either due to incorrect defense, or because some advantage had been acquired before
> >> > the attack was launched. A good chessplayer, he said, should try to acquire such
> >> > advantages before attacking. If this involved quiet, "boring" play, too bad. An
> >> > attack made without such preparation was an error in itself, and he won many
> >> > defensive games in this way.
> >> >
> >> > Or as one romantic said:
> >> >
> >> > "Kolisch is a tiger who leaps at your throat, Steintiz is a pickpocket who takes a pawn
> >> > and keeps it".
> >> >
> >> > Rather unfair to Steinitz who conducted many a brilliant attack, but they could
> >> > not abide the man who shot a lot of tigers.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure there is an agreed set of names for chess styles. But I would go
> >> > with:
> >> >
> >> > Early(0), Romantic, Modern, Hypermodern, Dynamic/Soviet.
> >> >
> >> > Modern started with Steinitz circa 1870, when he started to show that
> >> > you could take most gambit pawns and keep them (1). The modern
> >> > style ossified into dogma and was challenged by a group of younger
> >> > players, particularly Nimzowitsch, one of whom jokingly named the
> >> > style Hypermodern (2), which label stuck. The dynamic style, as
> >> > exemplified by their leading exponents (3), combined Hypermodernism
> >> > with pragmatism, and an almost Romantic disregard for material,
> >> > but backed by better judgment.
> >> >
> >> > World champions Lasker and Capablanca transcended style, Alekhine was
> >> > a dynamicist before his time, Botvinnik the great exemplar of the Soviet
> >> > school.
> >> >
> >> > Pillsbury was of the modern school. Had he been granted a normal lifespan, it
> >> > would have been interesting to see how this formidable thinker adapted to
> >> > hypermodernism.
> >> >
> >> > (0) This consists of many styles but I don't think they are distinguished by names.
> >> >
> >> > (1) Though the English player Boden was ahead of his time when in
> >> > the 1850s he quipped something to the effect that a gambit was
> >> > a way to gain the respect of onlookers at the cost of a lost game.
> >> >
> >> > (2) Some who didn't like this name called it "Neo-Romantic" but did not
> >> > prevail.
> >> >
> >> > (3) Bobby Fischer, of course.
> >> What does "material" mean in this context?
> >
> >Sorry, should have been more clear. Material in this case refers to pieces and pawns.
> >
> >If you sacrifice, as Anderssen did, the final position shows a much smaller force triumphing
> >over a larger one, part of the appeal of the romantic style.
> Well, it does if you /win/.
>
> If you lose, though, things look a bit different.

The true romantics would rather lose three games by incorrect sacrifices, and win three
brilliantly, than win all six games without brilliance.

One player of the 1800s who would agree with you was J. H. Blackburne, aka
"der schwarze Tod" to German players.

Though he played many a brilliant attack and was generally of the romantic school, he depended on prize money
for essentials like food and whisky. His contemporaries criticized him much as they did Steinitz. He would
insist on forgoing promising attacks for utterly certain wins in the endgame. Not sporting.

In a "Brewsters millions" scenario I'd pay John Nunn a hundred thousand pounds to annotate a decent
version of Blackburne's games (B's own annotations are in the sparse 1800s style) and publish it.

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:23:24 PM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:

> In a "Brewsters millions" scenario I'd pay John Nunn a hundred thousand pounds to annotate a decent
> version of Blackburne's games (B's own annotations are in the sparse 1800s style) and publish it.

I was surprised to hear that, even if the most famous annotated collection of the games of
Joseph Henry Blackburne is his own, that there wasn't one by a modern master.

So I went searching, on Amazon. I found a possible one by John C. Murray (British Chess Strategy) and
an almost certain one by Lyudmil Tsvetkov (Blackburne for Buffs).

Good news; he is Bulgarian, not Russian, so you will have no reason to have qualms about
ordering a copy of his book.

John Savard

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:42:41 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:23:24 PM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:
>
> > In a "Brewsters millions" scenario I'd pay John Nunn a hundred thousand pounds to annotate a decent
> > version of Blackburne's games (B's own annotations are in the sparse 1800s style) and publish it.
> I was surprised to hear that, even if the most famous annotated collection of the games of
> Joseph Henry Blackburne is his own, that there wasn't one by a modern master.
>
> So I went searching, on Amazon. I found a possible one by John C. Murray (British Chess Strategy) and
> an almost certain one by Lyudmil Tsvetkov (Blackburne for Buffs).
>
> Good news; he is Bulgarian, not Russian, so you will have no reason to have qualms about
> ordering a copy of his book.

There is also Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography by Tim Harding, but while it presents
a large selection of his games, I'm not sure that it annotates any of them.

John Savard

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 22:00:50 -0800, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>What about Poul Anderson's "The Immortal Game"
>(<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?58293>)? It was a short story,
>but it was a blow by blow description of an 1851 chess match (known as
>the Immortal Game), see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game>.

That particular game is one a lot of chess players would recognize.
The end of the game involves a lot of sacrifices leading to checkmate
at the end.

It's the sort of finish many players HOPE to get the opportunity to
play ONCE in their chess career. (That's probably obvious from the
title) The fact that it's still remembered 160 years later should
tell you of the esteem it's held in (you can purchase databases of 2
million + games online without difficulty)

(Among my other hobbies I am national secretary of the Chess
Federation of Canada and have directed 100+ tournaments so yes I've
seen a few games)

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 12:17:38 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:

> That particular game is one a lot of chess players would recognize.

Given

> (Among my other hobbies I am national secretary of the Chess
> Federation of Canada and have directed 100+ tournaments so yes I've
> seen a few games)

you would of course know that you were making... an understatement.

Of all the games of Chess ever played, Anderssen-Kieseretzky 1851 happens
to be the one considered the most entertaining, and it is the one that has been
reproduced the most frequently in collections of past chess games of interest.

However, "many" is indeed not "all", as many people who play Chess aren't
necessarily interested in the history of the game or of any serious study of it.

And while brilliancies (as this sort of thing is called) are _entertaining_, what
is more important to many chess players is games which are the most instructive.
(Anderssen's games, however, *are* of some virtue in this regard; Anderssen,
like Morphy, employed many of the principles of sound positional play in his games
before Steinitz spilled the beans on how it was done, so that any good chess player
could do it - if he wanted to, note the discussion above about Blackburne.)

John Savard