[lit-ideas] Re: Rhetoric and reality on Iran

  • From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:36:20 -0500

Nonsense. Most major openings were invented within a
hundred years after the change of rules in the
sixteenth century. (Before that, there were different
openings.)

As for methodical analysis, heavy theory, professional
approach etc. that is really the legacy the Soviet
Union. Maybe that was the place to live in, Eric.

____

As I said, acknowledging Philidor and Lopez, they were seminal creatives, but it wasn't real chess in my sense of the game. Crude embryos of openings don't seem a benchmark for me.

Also, the Soviet legacy really built upon the theoretical and methodical approaches of the 19th century. Do you have Kotov's _The Soviet School of Chess_? The Soviet commentators (e.g., Botvinnik in _My Best Games_) always acknowledge the 19th century and early twentieth ... Steinitz's annotations and Lasker's. That's where the game gets interesting.


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: