Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

We'll cross that bridge when we come back to it later.


interests / rec.games.chess.misc / Adorjan's response to Kasparov

SubjectAuthor
* Adorjan's response to KasparovPhil Innes
`- Re: Adorjan's response to KasparovPhil Innes

1
Adorjan's response to Kasparov

<6a26a9df-3cc6-496b-b6be-8680019d27e1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=882&group=rec.games.chess.misc#882

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:840f:b0:706:926a:9011 with SMTP id pc15-20020a05620a840f00b00706926a9011mr259808qkn.351.1674045009112;
Wed, 18 Jan 2023 04:30:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:2a49:b0:15e:ff34:3337 with SMTP id
jd9-20020a0568702a4900b0015eff343337mr733596oab.294.1674045007717; Wed, 18
Jan 2023 04:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 04:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:18b:300:7250:2c5b:c260:1751:6418;
posting-account=ktSWcAoAAABkUb7UEeYssjH2UXeM0HxB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:18b:300:7250:2c5b:c260:1751:6418
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6a26a9df-3cc6-496b-b6be-8680019d27e1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Adorjan's response to Kasparov
From: vtviewsi...@gmail.com (Phil Innes)
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 12:30:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 28067
 by: Phil Innes - Wed, 18 Jan 2023 12:30 UTC

"A Conversation"
with GMs András Adorján
and Garry Kasparov
Garry has asked me to contact you…
And there is stuff he wants to know for Predecessors, Vol 6, and here follows a fascinating exchange indicating the level of research Garry Kasparov conducts in his series, and the level of correspondent engaged!
Without more ado, and with no further introduction necessary, here are Garry’s Questions, as well as their Answers, by IGM András Adorján.


Garry Kasparov – My Great Predecessors, Volume 6
The Opening Revolution – Player Questionnaire

This upcoming volume of My Great Predecessors is about the big changes in the views and the understanding of the openings. The Informator classification at the end of the 1960’s was based on more than one hundred years of accumulated opening ideas and it seemed very much like a fixed base. Nothing revolutionary was expected.
András Adorján replies:
In fact, we had the Hedgehog system, Chelyabinsk, Grunfeld Exchange with Nf3, and many other lines that now form the core of the opening repertoire of the leading players. The role the 1970’s played in the process of opening evolution is seriously underestimated. There are a number of questions we would like to ask to help us understand this era.
Prologue: I wouldn’t like to mix up Grunfeld Exchange with Nf3...Rb1 with the 2 other mentioned bunch. The Hedgehog has crushed the fairy tales about the importance of spatial/space advantage. When I saw it first played in Portisch-Andersson Milan ’75 (0-1) I couldn’t believe to my eyes! When Ljubojevic started to play it too – one never knows who was the forefather – I understood nothing. That’s a great player as Ulf was with his ‘short move chess’ style is followed by a real aggressive Big-Big manoevering in the 7th-8th rank seemingly waiting for Divine force to intervene to release and even – you know!
I was wrong, of course, and when I realised the force of latent dynamism I started to play it as BLACK. Beating players like Korchnoi, Uhlmann, Miles among others with it.
In addition this kind of structure may appear of several other defences, variations too.
In short Hedgehog is a revolutionary step indeed, just like Boleslavsky’s blasphemy playing e7-e5 in the Sicilian anno ‘giving up’ the d5 key square. As to Chelyabinsk, that is a different kind of sensation. Not that it is openly attacking with BLACK. For that too. But its many sub-sub-sub-variations led to incredibly wide types of positions most people would never dare to look at unless with eyes covered by a BLACK cloth. And anyway the whole complex was underestimated, falsely evaluated. I played the ‘Sveshnikov’ (IM Tamás Horváth still keeps a scoresheet of a game he played years before Evgeny ever...) and not without success. The trouble is, when I got the fifth guy playing Bg5-Nd5 Be7-Bxf6 Bxf6-c3 I got fed up. Not that it gives White anything, but all of my romantic ideas went up to smoke. I knew many other ways to get ‘bored’. To mention Steinitz’s name here may be unexpected, but I remember a game Ivanovic-Sveshnikov where the BLACK’s king reached e5(!!) in a sharp middlegame and went on to win! (‘The king is a strong piece which is able to protect itself.’ – Uncle Wilhelm used to say in his time.) We wrote by the way two different books of the subject with IM Tamás Horváth. The latter came out in ’92. Ages before in such a sharp popular variation! Surprisingly quite a few lines stayed alive (specially those of our own ideas, TNs at that time) or returned after disappearing temporarily...
Could we consider that these rapid changes in opening quality and quantity, probably activated by Fischer and his clash with the Soviet chess school, all be called an opening revolution?
Bobby Fischer’s maximalism and other great many sparkling minds fighting vs him and vs each other sure had an effect in ALL parts of the Royal Game. But I think the World elite in anything always influences the crowd.. Today however just to compare 1972 – when the Reykjavik match was played – the number of registered tournament players (in any level) multiplied by 10 at least! In Hungary, and all over.
In addition nowadays there are about 100 times more tournaments too! That’s it! Needless to say the speed of (tele)communication – a new idea may be tested ‘down to bone’ in 2 weeks worldwide.. Quantity however did not result such an improvement on the quality as one may logically could expect. I regret to say, but by my estimate 70-80 % of the players unable to find out anything by himself but a mate in two. Don’t even try! Shocking is the grey crowd’s enormity which is composed of the epigons of epigons. If it would be not Nigel Short, but Garry Kasparov playing the Budapest Gambit just once against Karpov, millions of idiots would pick up this gambit-parodie. (I’m a loyal Hungarian, but still...) About which at least since 50 years anybody who opens up a book/database knows how to gain a lasting advantage without taking any chances. I think what we have today is not any kind of revolution in or besides the board. At best it’s an anarchy.
Again: comparing with the seventies who dares to say that there are more great chess heroes today than then? I repeat: from ten times as much players!!
Fischer, Larsen, Korchnoi, Portisch, Petrosian, Fridrik (Olafsson), Gligoric, Geller, Smyslov, Bronstein, Mecking, Timman, Stein, Karpov, Hort, Spassky,Smyslov, Ribli, Sax, Ivkov, Keres, Tal, Kasparov, Tseskovsky, Polugaevsky, Andersson, Belyavsky, Romanishin, Ljubojevic,Miles, Hübner, Uhlmann,Vaganjan,Yusupov,Taimanov,Seirawan ( 36 stars,
I think I don’t belong to them although I did reach the candidates in 1979 / 1980…
I apologise of those I may have left incidentally out.
There might be some unable to understand why Tseskovsky is among the mentioned ones for example. Those try to win twice the Championship of USSR like he did, but OK, double Russian Champion Title will do.
As to myself because of extremes of my achievements I could never stay high up for (I think I was 22nd at best) but I still made it once to the (8) Candidates (’79-80). And not by invitation...
What really happened is that the field not only grew tremendously, but evened too, at least as lexical knowledge – especially opening theory – concerns, so such a thing as for a Grandmaster it’s enough some patience to beat an IM hardly exists anymore. There is simply a much more educated middle-class, but theory is still made by the few. They are lazy too. And I strongly reject the irresponsibility of those who play all the super tournaments (maybe 25 in all) please themselves, while others with say 2670 face no hope to get there, still not feeling the duty to play decent openings.
At least those who play 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 follow a line which gave nothing already in Hecht-Adorján (Wijk aan Zee ’71) and many games BEFORE! Also, on this line playing 3.Nc3 e5 regularly is an assault of the good taste. You can throw in anything once, but this is scandal. These games are not for the development of chess, just the opposite – guiding tens of thousands of ‘club-players’ to make this kind of rubbish boredom to the fashion. Few ‘fights’ seem fixed anyway or we have a phrase in Hungary saying: ‘Winking draws’. No word needed – let’s keep the status quo the Almighty Rating.
I would love to see the first 100 playing a 13-round open. Or the first 50 to play a 4-games’ match against the second (‘rate by handling’) fifty.
I assure you, Ladies and Gentlemen, you’d see many-many surprises and a lot of things differently afterwards.
Summary: all that is needed for a revolution is there: databases, books, magazines, trainers (some of them are really devoted and professional, but this is a minority). Still theory – under what I understand the original, the new, or (by far the best!) rehabilitation of something generally considered bad – is made by fairly few people and their helpers, the crowd wants only to copy better than others, win games, tournaments, headlines, money. They (would) love success. But chess??
If yes, what was the reason behind it? Fischer? The explosion of globally available information? (Informator, ECO, bulletins), a new wave of revolutionary players?
Can you see, Garry – this is how an in-disciplined person’s inquiry looks? Instead of saying hallelujah that chess which I still love like when I was a child (or more) is alive what more ‘blossoms’, I can only tell with aching heart that today when everybody is a ‘genius’ (or if not yet, it’s just a question of time and money.) I see so little true artistic performances, deep (remember Efim Geller!) strategy, original ideas. Somehow it is not even a wonder: the chess world has become a big pub. Or many travelling circuses with ageing and indeed young but already burnt out people. What was the last time somebody made a new move in the fifth? Could that be Miguel Najdorf’s 5. ... a6 in the Sicilian? Or – pardon me – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 e5!!? The PLAYABLE Adorján Gambit (Kramnik-Leko, ’98, Tilburg 0-1). OK, it’s hard to match. But I guarantee you there are many-many moves to make between moves 6. and 8. Which are:
1.brand new,
2.not worse than the one played by 95%
3.turns the tables with a compromised move with the ‘real’ idea.
Piket-Kasparov was an improvement on some game after 26 years. I think, if you’d only take back the queen by Rfxd8 you’re fine, perhaps better. I’ve long analyses I made at that time just for curiosity. By the way curiosity! The mature genius of Bobby Fischer, yours, or mine – smaller size – are only BASED on born intellect, talent, however great is. If somebody, you know what hard work is. You know, what true and humble love for chess. Curiosity – childish, if you want – and love built on what you have as a gift makes it all. There were always jealous talks about you, your people, computers – so you won many games at home just because nobody has such a background etc. This is all garbage.
When we met in ‘79 Banja Luka you played both 1.e4, 1.d4 becoming 16 there – April the 13th. (Do YOU remember my birthday? A little help: the numbers are reversed, the month is slightly different...) I remember listening to a long dispute between you and Tigran Petrosian about some Spanish variation. That ended like: ‘Izvinite Tigran Vartanovich, but I have analysed it at home a lot!’ Petro-Papa smiled away widely and surrendered.
Not much later I became one of those few who actually helped you. And as I wrote in a book you did not like very much: ‘ Still it was a great feeling to stay faithful and strait on the right side even so our case seemed hopelessly lost.’ (1984 Moscow September K vs K 4-0) It is to be feared that confessions and words of tribute – admiration to put it plain – avoided your attention at that time.
As long as you were a REVOLUTIONER in all ways I never felt humiliating being sometimes a slave. A slave who served everybody by your true mission at that time. I loved you as some strange mixture of your early lost father and never-existent elder brother. There came other times. But as your chess concerns I said on several occasions (of course publicly): ‘As long as Garry is able to move the pieces, nobody comes close to his throne.’ Also:
‘If there would be real rivalry to force him he could do even better.’ My last declaration of this kind was not long before Linares. My guess is that you simply got bored. Not from chess of course, but from the same/similar opponents and the lack of a new, worthy target. 20 years on the top doesn’t need any more ‘supporting evidence’. Thinking, searching, writing, teaching with your skill and maximalist attitude will serve chess and chessplayers to complete your quest. And this is in my eyes – who is another lunatic (or should I say idealist?) – matters much.
As to your fight for the people of Russia in your motherland against mean forces is the most dangerous game of your life. It is generally considered crazy so openly, but for me this recalls the young fearless rebel I once knew, the enthusiasm we shared not only about chess. If you feel, this is something a good-willing man should do, and your whole personality – not only the proud titles – may support, go! Be God with you – and some bodyguards!
Don’t listen to anybody but your beloved and a bunch (not a crowd!) of true friends. You see I don’t know much more about the present Garry Kasparov than a well-informed patzer. Probably less. But if this is the Garry Kasparov, ‘to fight the unbeatable foe’ as The Man of la Mancha’s title song goes and ‘to right the unrightable wrong’ then you have one more friend here. Do you know that Don Quixote is in all my works published? Since a long-long time.
I know most people consider me crazy. For a much longer time than they think that about you. Turning to 56 this doesn’t bother me much. But if I have a chance I used to ask:
‘Does this world looks like led by normal/sane people?’
Will you pardon me, it’s not exactly corresponding the question. I’ll try harder.
Ok, ok.
1. It was 1966 when the first Chess Informant came out. Yes, by itself it was a weapon to those players who wanted and were able to make ‘quality revolution’. The ECO too.
2. At that time it was difficult to get even a tournament bulletin. Everybody among us who played abroad was obliged to bring one copy of the bulletin, so at least the best players could get a photocopy. I do not remember, but it must have been (much?) later when ‘Tournament Chess’ started to operate with nearly all the best tournaments’ games (no analyses).
3. Those were funnily quiet times: if you had the Informant, Sakhmatnij Bulletin, and some few available basic informations you could not be content, but you knew others are in the same situation. Something tells me that this poverty did good too. You had to use your OWN BRAIN. I was not the only boy who had a little notebook (not that kind!) full of analyses of mine since the age of 11. The size of notebooks are steadily got larger, needless to say every single variation ended with a mate. And they were kilometer long. Some even sound! I still keep this ‘oldies’ as a treasure. Traxler Gambit! Polerio Muzio! Marshall! Chess-Beauty Contest.... If I have a chance I’ll present you Garry the earliest and smallest (half of your palm’s size) notes-collection of mine as a talisman.
Also I trust your judgement very much so if you have nothing else to do (as usual) you are fully authorised to check out its content. There is, of course a little danger that in no time there’ll appear a mini-book titled: ‘Garry’s first works’. At least I’ll know my analyses were either correct or the ‘test of time’ was made by the Best Ever expert available. Also a supporter should know that an armoured coat of the more comfortable is not very cheap. Finally your name is not at all worse than mine. Also your son is only 9 while my daughters are already past 25 and 26...
Who were the true revolutionaries of that time, those who pushed chess forward? Not only in the openings, but also in general terms. Who should be mentioned more than others? Bobby was, of course a symbol, a legend, not only a great player to rightly and deservedly become a Champion. Marching to the throne by beating both Taimanov and LARSEN 6-0 was something that is still unbelievable.
Petrosian did not cause much headaches to Fischer either. He himself was on Spassky’s side (0-2 to begin with) but knowing only the final result one can not think the match was not a joyride for him.
Bobby is a living legend. A true HERO and an unpredictable Magician who – this is my subjective opinion – was a hurt child who could be better off having more loving care even at a price of less loud successes. I happen to know somewhat more of his comeback and the years afterwards than the average people but all I can say let us be grateful that he visited this planet to play chess for us. Let God judge him as a man. And only God.
I used to say: ‘chess is very much like life. In chess however there’s TRUTH being served as well.’ In my ‘answer’ to question One there are over 35 names. It is wrong to pick just a few of great characters like them, but I obey. The way Geller played the Spanish and the King’s Indian (no, Sir Bronstein, I haven’t forget your games in the second subjects and in general either) was so crystal clear, and logical-elegant at the end that many of this games could be a present to all (except maybe the opponent). Larsen won countless games with 1.b3 with his willpower, fooling everybody. It took years for the hypnotized chess world to find out that for non-Larsens this move makes White have to fight for equality...
Petrosian simply refuted the superstition of the advantage of Queen’s file pawn majority! While having ‘a’ and ‘b’ pawns (usually with BLACK) against ‘a,b.c’ you have an extra ‘e’ (plus 3-3) which can help dangerous operations ganging up with peaces or/and the ‘f’ colleague.
You first have to survive the middlegame only to find out that the White’s passed pawn will be a ‘c’ (if there’ll be at all) that is: NOT really far from the BLACK’s king (short castles).
Ribli, Sax and I did quite a job all right about the whole Grünfeld. (Later on I ‘infected’ Garry with it too) Victor Korchnoi proved – among many other impossible bravures – by stubbornly capturing pawns that no poison does harm on him...
Hübner was extremely original, but his ‘invented’ variation in the Nimzo was the kind of well-forgotten. Too bad that Lajos Portisch played it on several occasions much earlier.
Aron Nimzovitz was still the winner of the ‘race’. He beat Johner already in 1926 with it! Oh, my Goodness!
Let the last case be a kind of answer of the obligatory sarcastic question: ‘Where would be the great ones of the past in today’s rating list?’
In which openings were the changes after 1972 most radical? Where were they most important and meaningful?
There were many.’ Full service’ in Sicilian. Hedgehog, Gruenfeld were mentioned already. The ‘bad’ King’s Indian got healed by a Doctor. It was Dr. Nunn sometime around ’80 if I remember well. Later on Garry picked it up as well. The trouble is the same as with ‘mention few pioneers.’ It would be easier to name those fields where nothing remarkable did not happen. Easier but not at all easy!
What kind of changes in these openings had the greatest impact on you and your games? Or that influenced your pupils?
Being a tournament/professional player one concentrates to those variations (s)he plays or intends to employ. Consequently I realized less of what is happening elsewhere and to judge the importance of the events there. The Gruenfeld was something I played since I was 15 and played all through my career with some (short) breaks – not for the lack of faith. (Benoni,Nimzo,Queen’s Indian) On the other hand I started to play the ‘passive’ Caro Kann when I realised that I have no weapon of whatsoever AGAINST it...
Otherwise-although it may sound immodest- I rarely followed any fashion, the opposite happened many times. Even in the highest circles I never belonged there (except as a trainer of Garry /1979-1986, Spraggett’s second vs.A.Sokolov1988 St. John -we won-, and the trainer of P. Lékó between 1993-99 in few ‘waves’ altogether some 3 years) but very few people created more novelties/discoveries than me. Especially with BLACK – almost never to defence but counterattacking!
5. What was your own contribution? In concrete lines or typical positions you analyzed and promoted in your games.
Ever since my first article was published in Magyar Sakkelet (Hungarian Chess Life) 40 (forty) years ago in 1965 I wrote/analysed a hell lot. I did and do love to do it.
Numberless publications in over 60 Chess mags all over the world including Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew and practically all big languages except Hindi. So far I have 12 books mostly dedicated to BLACK is OK! And I’m preparing a summary titled ‘The Dogma is Dead-BLACK is BACK!’
With computer assistance in the 1990’s, is this opening revolution now unbound? Or have all the major discoveries been made and all future change incremental? Is chess now “faceless” with machines levelling the individualistic nature of the game?
N O W AY !
Or can bright talent still shine through? Yes, of course. I do not see the borders of chess.
Please add anything important you would like to add that has not been covered above.
BLOODY HELL! My present and penultimate wife Ilus (Ilona) had to leave after the prologue, and I lost her all 10 fingers this way!! The rest I DID with 9 less fingers of my own. Simultaneously I had to think. If you ever tried you may guess what shape I’m in. The ambulance just left. The sympathetic doctor simply said: ‘I think it’s not worth the trouble for just few hours. And it is so much more romantic to pass away at home. Isn’t it, Daddy?
Between us: we still have a couple of calls. And we are running out of petrol...’
See you over there! Have a safe journey! In case of fire USE THE STAIRS downwards
Bye, bye: András

Click here to read the complete article

Re: Adorjan's response to Kasparov

<6c8d263f-81e1-459e-9902-0254f59249c1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=883&group=rec.games.chess.misc#883

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4808:b0:706:38ab:54b7 with SMTP id eb8-20020a05620a480800b0070638ab54b7mr370236qkb.735.1674047562770;
Wed, 18 Jan 2023 05:12:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:ac8a:b0:15f:29ff:b845 with SMTP id
ns10-20020a056870ac8a00b0015f29ffb845mr432728oab.97.1674047562386; Wed, 18
Jan 2023 05:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 05:12:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6a26a9df-3cc6-496b-b6be-8680019d27e1n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:18b:300:7250:2c5b:c260:1751:6418;
posting-account=ktSWcAoAAABkUb7UEeYssjH2UXeM0HxB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:18b:300:7250:2c5b:c260:1751:6418
References: <6a26a9df-3cc6-496b-b6be-8680019d27e1n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6c8d263f-81e1-459e-9902-0254f59249c1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Adorjan's response to Kasparov
From: vtviewsi...@gmail.com (Phil Innes)
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:12:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 29021
 by: Phil Innes - Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:12 UTC

I should explain that I worked for 15 years with Adorjan especially on his Black is Okay series. He kindly included my name a couple of times in what is probably his last book: Black Is Back! There are a few outrageous anecdotes to relate on that, but first I will let the reader catch up with the responses above to Kasparov's questionnaire. One note on the text is that I bullied it into some form of English, but too much force would de-colorize it, possibly shift the intended meaning, and then it would sound like me not AA.

Phil Innes

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 7:30:10 AM UTC-5, Phil Innes wrote:
> "A Conversation"
>
> with GMs András Adorján
> and Garry Kasparov
> Garry has asked me to contact you…
> And there is stuff he wants to know for Predecessors, Vol 6, and here follows a fascinating exchange indicating the level of research Garry Kasparov conducts in his series, and the level of correspondent engaged!
> Without more ado, and with no further introduction necessary, here are Garry’s Questions, as well as their Answers, by IGM András Adorján.
>
>
>
> Garry Kasparov – My Great Predecessors, Volume 6
> The Opening Revolution – Player Questionnaire
>
> This upcoming volume of My Great Predecessors is about the big changes in the views and the understanding of the openings. The Informator classification at the end of the 1960’s was based on more than one hundred years of accumulated opening ideas and it seemed very much like a fixed base. Nothing revolutionary was expected.
> András Adorján replies:
> In fact, we had the Hedgehog system, Chelyabinsk, Grunfeld Exchange with Nf3, and many other lines that now form the core of the opening repertoire of the leading players. The role the 1970’s played in the process of opening evolution is seriously underestimated. There are a number of questions we would like to ask to help us understand this era.
> Prologue: I wouldn’t like to mix up Grunfeld Exchange with Nf3...Rb1 with the 2 other mentioned bunch. The Hedgehog has crushed the fairy tales about the importance of spatial/space advantage. When I saw it first played in Portisch-Andersson Milan ’75 (0-1) I couldn’t believe to my eyes! When Ljubojevic started to play it too – one never knows who was the forefather – I understood nothing. That’s a great player as Ulf was with his ‘short move chess’ style is followed by a real aggressive Big-Big manoevering in the 7th-8th rank seemingly waiting for Divine force to intervene to release and even – you know!
> I was wrong, of course, and when I realised the force of latent dynamism I started to play it as BLACK. Beating players like Korchnoi, Uhlmann, Miles among others with it.
> In addition this kind of structure may appear of several other defences, variations too.
> In short Hedgehog is a revolutionary step indeed, just like Boleslavsky’s blasphemy playing e7-e5 in the Sicilian anno ‘giving up’ the d5 key square. As to Chelyabinsk, that is a different kind of sensation. Not that it is openly attacking with BLACK. For that too. But its many sub-sub-sub-variations led to incredibly wide types of positions most people would never dare to look at unless with eyes covered by a BLACK cloth. And anyway the whole complex was underestimated, falsely evaluated. I played the ‘Sveshnikov’ (IM Tamás Horváth still keeps a scoresheet of a game he played years before Evgeny ever...) and not without success. The trouble is, when I got the fifth guy playing Bg5-Nd5 Be7-Bxf6 Bxf6-c3 I got fed up. Not that it gives White anything, but all of my romantic ideas went up to smoke. I knew many other ways to get ‘bored’. To mention Steinitz’s name here may be unexpected, but I remember a game Ivanovic-Sveshnikov where the BLACK’s king reached e5(!!) in a sharp middlegame and went on to win! (‘The king is a strong piece which is able to protect itself.’ – Uncle Wilhelm used to say in his time.) We wrote by the way two different books of the subject with IM Tamás Horváth. The latter came out in ’92. Ages before in such a sharp popular variation! Surprisingly quite a few lines stayed alive (specially those of our own ideas, TNs at that time) or returned after disappearing temporarily...
> Could we consider that these rapid changes in opening quality and quantity, probably activated by Fischer and his clash with the Soviet chess school, all be called an opening revolution?
>
> Bobby Fischer’s maximalism and other great many sparkling minds fighting vs him and vs each other sure had an effect in ALL parts of the Royal Game. But I think the World elite in anything always influences the crowd. Today however just to compare 1972 – when the Reykjavik match was played – the number of registered tournament players (in any level) multiplied by 10 at least! In Hungary, and all over.
> In addition nowadays there are about 100 times more tournaments too! That’s it! Needless to say the speed of (tele)communication – a new idea may be tested ‘down to bone’ in 2 weeks worldwide.. Quantity however did not result such an improvement on the quality as one may logically could expect. I regret to say, but by my estimate 70-80 % of the players unable to find out anything by himself but a mate in two. Don’t even try! Shocking is the grey crowd’s enormity which is composed of the epigons of epigons. If it would be not Nigel Short, but Garry Kasparov playing the Budapest Gambit just once against Karpov, millions of idiots would pick up this gambit-parodie. (I’m a loyal Hungarian, but still...) About which at least since 50 years anybody who opens up a book/database knows how to gain a lasting advantage without taking any chances. I think what we have today is not any kind of revolution in or besides the board. At best it’s an anarchy.
> Again: comparing with the seventies who dares to say that there are more great chess heroes today than then? I repeat: from ten times as much players!!
> Fischer, Larsen, Korchnoi, Portisch, Petrosian, Fridrik (Olafsson), Gligoric, Geller, Smyslov, Bronstein, Mecking, Timman, Stein, Karpov, Hort, Spassky,Smyslov, Ribli, Sax, Ivkov, Keres, Tal, Kasparov, Tseskovsky, Polugaevsky, Andersson, Belyavsky, Romanishin, Ljubojevic,Miles, Hübner, Uhlmann,Vaganjan,Yusupov,Taimanov,Seirawan ( 36 stars,
> I think I don’t belong to them although I did reach the candidates in 1979 / 1980…
> I apologise of those I may have left incidentally out.
> There might be some unable to understand why Tseskovsky is among the mentioned ones for example. Those try to win twice the Championship of USSR like he did, but OK, double Russian Champion Title will do.
> As to myself because of extremes of my achievements I could never stay high up for (I think I was 22nd at best) but I still made it once to the (8) Candidates (’79-80). And not by invitation...
> What really happened is that the field not only grew tremendously, but evened too, at least as lexical knowledge – especially opening theory – concerns, so such a thing as for a Grandmaster it’s enough some patience to beat an IM hardly exists anymore. There is simply a much more educated middle-class, but theory is still made by the few. They are lazy too. And I strongly reject the irresponsibility of those who play all the super tournaments (maybe 25 in all) please themselves, while others with say 2670 face no hope to get there, still not feeling the duty to play decent openings.
> At least those who play 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 follow a line which gave nothing already in Hecht-Adorján (Wijk aan Zee ’71) and many games BEFORE! Also, on this line playing 3.Nc3 e5 regularly is an assault of the good taste. You can throw in anything once, but this is scandal. These games are not for the development of chess, just the opposite – guiding tens of thousands of ‘club-players’ to make this kind of rubbish boredom to the fashion. Few ‘fights’ seem fixed anyway or we have a phrase in Hungary saying: ‘Winking draws’. No word needed – let’s keep the status quo the Almighty Rating..
> I would love to see the first 100 playing a 13-round open. Or the first 50 to play a 4-games’ match against the second (‘rate by handling’) fifty.
> I assure you, Ladies and Gentlemen, you’d see many-many surprises and a lot of things differently afterwards.
> Summary: all that is needed for a revolution is there: databases, books, magazines, trainers (some of them are really devoted and professional, but this is a minority). Still theory – under what I understand the original, the new, or (by far the best!) rehabilitation of something generally considered bad – is made by fairly few people and their helpers, the crowd wants only to copy better than others, win games, tournaments, headlines, money. They (would) love success. But chess??
> If yes, what was the reason behind it? Fischer? The explosion of globally available information? (Informator, ECO, bulletins), a new wave of revolutionary players?
> Can you see, Garry – this is how an in-disciplined person’s inquiry looks? Instead of saying hallelujah that chess which I still love like when I was a child (or more) is alive what more ‘blossoms’, I can only tell with aching heart that today when everybody is a ‘genius’ (or if not yet, it’s just a question of time and money.) I see so little true artistic performances, deep (remember Efim Geller!) strategy, original ideas. Somehow it is not even a wonder: the chess world has become a big pub. Or many travelling circuses with ageing and indeed young but already burnt out people. What was the last time somebody made a new move in the fifth? Could that be Miguel Najdorf’s 5.. ... a6 in the Sicilian? Or – pardon me – 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 e5!!? The PLAYABLE Adorján Gambit (Kramnik-Leko, ’98, Tilburg 0-1). OK, it’s hard to match. But I guarantee you there are many-many moves to make between moves 6. and 8. Which are:
> 1.brand new,
> 2.not worse than the one played by 95%
> 3.turns the tables with a compromised move with the ‘real’ idea.
> Piket-Kasparov was an improvement on some game after 26 years. I think, if you’d only take back the queen by Rfxd8 you’re fine, perhaps better. I’ve long analyses I made at that time just for curiosity. By the way curiosity! The mature genius of Bobby Fischer, yours, or mine – smaller size – are only BASED on born intellect, talent, however great is. If somebody, you know what hard work is. You know, what true and humble love for chess. Curiosity – childish, if you want – and love built on what you have as a gift makes it all. There were always jealous talks about you, your people, computers – so you won many games at home just because nobody has such a background etc. This is all garbage.
> When we met in ‘79 Banja Luka you played both 1.e4, 1.d4 becoming 16 there – April the 13th. (Do YOU remember my birthday? A little help: the numbers are reversed, the month is slightly different...) I remember listening to a long dispute between you and Tigran Petrosian about some Spanish variation. That ended like: ‘Izvinite Tigran Vartanovich, but I have analysed it at home a lot!’ Petro-Papa smiled away widely and surrendered.
> Not much later I became one of those few who actually helped you. And as I wrote in a book you did not like very much: ‘ Still it was a great feeling to stay faithful and strait on the right side even so our case seemed hopelessly lost.’ (1984 Moscow September K vs K 4-0) It is to be feared that confessions and words of tribute – admiration to put it plain – avoided your attention at that time.
> As long as you were a REVOLUTIONER in all ways I never felt humiliating being sometimes a slave. A slave who served everybody by your true mission at that time. I loved you as some strange mixture of your early lost father and never-existent elder brother. There came other times. But as your chess concerns I said on several occasions (of course publicly): ‘As long as Garry is able to move the pieces, nobody comes close to his throne.’ Also:
> ‘If there would be real rivalry to force him he could do even better.’ My last declaration of this kind was not long before Linares. My guess is that you simply got bored. Not from chess of course, but from the same/similar opponents and the lack of a new, worthy target. 20 years on the top doesn’t need any more ‘supporting evidence’. Thinking, searching, writing, teaching with your skill and maximalist attitude will serve chess and chessplayers to complete your quest. And this is in my eyes – who is another lunatic (or should I say idealist?) – matters much.
> As to your fight for the people of Russia in your motherland against mean forces is the most dangerous game of your life. It is generally considered crazy so openly, but for me this recalls the young fearless rebel I once knew, the enthusiasm we shared not only about chess. If you feel, this is something a good-willing man should do, and your whole personality – not only the proud titles – may support, go! Be God with you – and some bodyguards!
> Don’t listen to anybody but your beloved and a bunch (not a crowd!) of true friends. You see I don’t know much more about the present Garry Kasparov than a well-informed patzer. Probably less. But if this is the Garry Kasparov, ‘to fight the unbeatable foe’ as The Man of la Mancha’s title song goes and ‘to right the unrightable wrong’ then you have one more friend here. Do you know that Don Quixote is in all my works published? Since a long-long time.
> I know most people consider me crazy. For a much longer time than they think that about you. Turning to 56 this doesn’t bother me much. But if I have a chance I used to ask:
> ‘Does this world looks like led by normal/sane people?’
> Will you pardon me, it’s not exactly corresponding the question. I’ll try harder.
> Ok, ok.
> 1. It was 1966 when the first Chess Informant came out. Yes, by itself it was a weapon to those players who wanted and were able to make ‘quality revolution’. The ECO too.
> 2. At that time it was difficult to get even a tournament bulletin. Everybody among us who played abroad was obliged to bring one copy of the bulletin, so at least the best players could get a photocopy. I do not remember, but it must have been (much?) later when ‘Tournament Chess’ started to operate with nearly all the best tournaments’ games (no analyses).
> 3. Those were funnily quiet times: if you had the Informant, Sakhmatnij Bulletin, and some few available basic informations you could not be content, but you knew others are in the same situation. Something tells me that this poverty did good too. You had to use your OWN BRAIN. I was not the only boy who had a little notebook (not that kind!) full of analyses of mine since the age of 11. The size of notebooks are steadily got larger, needless to say every single variation ended with a mate. And they were kilometer long. Some even sound! I still keep this ‘oldies’ as a treasure. Traxler Gambit! Polerio Muzio! Marshall! Chess-Beauty Contest... If I have a chance I’ll present you Garry the earliest and smallest (half of your palm’s size) notes-collection of mine as a talisman.
> Also I trust your judgement very much so if you have nothing else to do (as usual) you are fully authorised to check out its content. There is, of course a little danger that in no time there’ll appear a mini-book titled: ‘Garry’s first works’. At least I’ll know my analyses were either correct or the ‘test of time’ was made by the Best Ever expert available. Also a supporter should know that an armoured coat of the more comfortable is not very cheap. Finally your name is not at all worse than mine. Also your son is only 9 while my daughters are already past 25 and 26...
> Who were the true revolutionaries of that time, those who pushed chess forward? Not only in the openings, but also in general terms. Who should be mentioned more than others? Bobby was, of course a symbol, a legend, not only a great player to rightly and deservedly become a Champion. Marching to the throne by beating both Taimanov and LARSEN 6-0 was something that is still unbelievable.
> Petrosian did not cause much headaches to Fischer either. He himself was on Spassky’s side (0-2 to begin with) but knowing only the final result one can not think the match was not a joyride for him.
> Bobby is a living legend. A true HERO and an unpredictable Magician who – this is my subjective opinion – was a hurt child who could be better off having more loving care even at a price of less loud successes. I happen to know somewhat more of his comeback and the years afterwards than the average people but all I can say let us be grateful that he visited this planet to play chess for us. Let God judge him as a man. And only God.
> I used to say: ‘chess is very much like life. In chess however there’s TRUTH being served as well.’ In my ‘answer’ to question One there are over 35 names. It is wrong to pick just a few of great characters like them, but I obey. The way Geller played the Spanish and the King’s Indian (no, Sir Bronstein, I haven’t forget your games in the second subjects and in general either) was so crystal clear, and logical-elegant at the end that many of this games could be a present to all (except maybe the opponent). Larsen won countless games with 1.b3 with his willpower, fooling everybody. It took years for the hypnotized chess world to find out that for non-Larsens this move makes White have to fight for equality...
> Petrosian simply refuted the superstition of the advantage of Queen’s file pawn majority! While having ‘a’ and ‘b’ pawns (usually with BLACK) against ‘a,b.c’ you have an extra ‘e’ (plus 3-3) which can help dangerous operations ganging up with peaces or/and the ‘f’ colleague.
> You first have to survive the middlegame only to find out that the White’s passed pawn will be a ‘c’ (if there’ll be at all) that is: NOT really far from the BLACK’s king (short castles).
> Ribli, Sax and I did quite a job all right about the whole Grünfeld. (Later on I ‘infected’ Garry with it too) Victor Korchnoi proved – among many other impossible bravures – by stubbornly capturing pawns that no poison does harm on him...
> Hübner was extremely original, but his ‘invented’ variation in the Nimzo was the kind of well-forgotten. Too bad that Lajos Portisch played it on several occasions much earlier.
> Aron Nimzovitz was still the winner of the ‘race’. He beat Johner already in 1926 with it! Oh, my Goodness!
> Let the last case be a kind of answer of the obligatory sarcastic question: ‘Where would be the great ones of the past in today’s rating list?’
> In which openings were the changes after 1972 most radical? Where were they most important and meaningful?
> There were many.’ Full service’ in Sicilian. Hedgehog, Gruenfeld were mentioned already. The ‘bad’ King’s Indian got healed by a Doctor. It was Dr. Nunn sometime around ’80 if I remember well. Later on Garry picked it up as well. The trouble is the same as with ‘mention few pioneers.’ It would be easier to name those fields where nothing remarkable did not happen. Easier but not at all easy!
> What kind of changes in these openings had the greatest impact on you and your games? Or that influenced your pupils?
> Being a tournament/professional player one concentrates to those variations (s)he plays or intends to employ. Consequently I realized less of what is happening elsewhere and to judge the importance of the events there. The Gruenfeld was something I played since I was 15 and played all through my career with some (short) breaks – not for the lack of faith. (Benoni,Nimzo,Queen’s Indian) On the other hand I started to play the ‘passive’ Caro Kann when I realised that I have no weapon of whatsoever AGAINST it...
> Otherwise-although it may sound immodest- I rarely followed any fashion, the opposite happened many times. Even in the highest circles I never belonged there (except as a trainer of Garry /1979-1986, Spraggett’s second vs.A.Sokolov1988 St. John -we won-, and the trainer of P. Lékó between 1993-99 in few ‘waves’ altogether some 3 years) but very few people created more novelties/discoveries than me. Especially with BLACK – almost never to defence but counterattacking!
> 5. What was your own contribution? In concrete lines or typical positions you analyzed and promoted in your games.
> Ever since my first article was published in Magyar Sakkelet (Hungarian Chess Life) 40 (forty) years ago in 1965 I wrote/analysed a hell lot. I did and do love to do it.
> Numberless publications in over 60 Chess mags all over the world including Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew and practically all big languages except Hindi. So far I have 12 books mostly dedicated to BLACK is OK! And I’m preparing a summary titled ‘The Dogma is Dead-BLACK is BACK!’
> With computer assistance in the 1990’s, is this opening revolution now unbound? Or have all the major discoveries been made and all future change incremental? Is chess now “faceless” with machines levelling the individualistic nature of the game?
> N O W AY !
> Or can bright talent still shine through? Yes, of course. I do not see the borders of chess.
> Please add anything important you would like to add that has not been covered above.
> BLOODY HELL! My present and penultimate wife Ilus (Ilona) had to leave after the prologue, and I lost her all 10 fingers this way!! The rest I DID with 9 less fingers of my own. Simultaneously I had to think. If you ever tried you may guess what shape I’m in. The ambulance just left. The sympathetic doctor simply said: ‘I think it’s not worth the trouble for just few hours. And it is so much more romantic to pass away at home. Isn’t it, Daddy?
> Between us: we still have a couple of calls. And we are running out of petrol...’
> See you over there! Have a safe journey! In case of fire USE THE STAIRS downwards
> Bye, bye: András
>
> P.S.: My last two books (‘BLACK IS still OK!’ July, 2004, and ‘BLACK IS OK! Forever’ February 2005) has a lot more to say.
> --- I’m not very good in questionnaires. The toughest I could solve successfully are those that have questions such as: ‘Nationality’, ‘Sex’ (best accompanied male/female/other), ‘Age’ (although my memory gets weaker).
> The test sheets are like analyses exclusively with symbols. The real elaboration, or just call it TOTAL EXPLORATION IS VERBAL!! (using symbols too, += is good enough for White is better.) and X-rays all the elements of the fight – emotionally with the waves, and pointing out as much as possible of the million components that has no symbol at all. Things like (as it comes to my mind) the balance between the players, the tournament situation and period – say last round. Parallel developments of the round, eventual incidents. Story of a novelty, trying to understand the reason of a blunder (own or the opponent’s). Post mortem analyses, ‘wisdoms’... This I don’t continue for free. But if you want to bet, I can continue till – at least – 500. Just make food and drink available. But maybe it won’t last 2 hours.
> Finally: We have a symbol for Zeitnot. We don’t for mutual! (My novelty ZZ) We have the same symbol for losing on time. It is not always obvious. And anyway: what is called to be Zeitnot? For some 3 moves for 5 minutes is one. Depending on the position is may even be true. In another type of position the same player can make 16 moves/2 minutes and good ones. In 1981 I did it twice against Lajos Portisch in even but not drawish positions, where he could set up few innocent-looking traps taking no chance, which he did of course. And – as a gentleman – twice offered a draw when we reached forty. Anyway: time is an important part of the games at any period. Individually (compared the number of moves) and compared to the opponent’s consumed time. But I have a SOLUTION!
> I fill the questionnairy first as a good boy. The best I can get out in short. It is going to be however the basic only and surely dissatisfies me. To please the ‘immigration’ is not my target. These questions I handle not as a task, but a good opportunity to think down to the roots. Not for the first time, true, but remember Edison, who said laconicly: ‘Nr..1000 was the successful, productive experiment’...
> P.S.: To your PS: We used to have a great poet who when getting old introduced himself like: ‘I was SZÉP Ernő...’ In our case I can tell you I’ll be ADORJÁN András (unfortunately after my death) who proved the thesis ‘BLACK IS OK!’ refuting the dogma of White’s superiority in chess. You could be very proud about knowing me personally if you were not very dead long before...
> BLACK is OK!


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor