Friday Cat Blogging 8

Comments

There's a rumor going around that GM Wojtkiewicz passed away today. If that's true, may he rest in peace.
Posted by: g at July 14, 2006 23:42

Sickening if it's true...
Posted by: John Fernandez at July 14, 2006 23:50

Some pretty reliable sources are telling me it is sadly true. Would love more information, though.
Posted by: John Fernandez at July 14, 2006 23:56

USCF website confirms :(

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_66.php
Posted by: Doom & Gloom Dave at July 15, 2006 00:08

happy thoughts, pretty kitties... end this thread now.
Posted by: Polish Magician Fan at July 15, 2006 00:51

On a happier note -- Mig, can you give us an update on Kasparov's ATTACKER'S ADVANTAGE? I hear that Karpov is also coming out with a business book related to chess, this September.

Howard
Posted by: Howard Goldowsky at July 15, 2006 10:05

Nice pic. I wonder what they were looking at?

Any news about the players preparations for the WCC unification match? Do we know yet what internet coverage it is going to get? Who the seconds will be?
Posted by: SonOfPearl at July 15, 2006 10:28

Mig, what is the latest on the Candidates matches?
Posted by: Cy Neuman at July 15, 2006 12:32

Is Kramnik the first reigning world champion to play a simul over the internet? It seems strange, but I don't recall Kasparov ever doing that (I could be completely wrong though).
Does anyone know?
Posted by: GMinem at July 15, 2006 12:38

Although I dislike Kirsan I think I wan't to help in doing my little part to promote/hype the upcoming Topalov-Kramnik match. For this reason it would be lovely if there was any dates announced that could help my planning. Any date for future pressconferences before the match? Any date for the release of a match-website? Any date on which further confirmation that the match is on will be presented?
Posted by: Jens Petersson at July 15, 2006 13:03

Hi Alex, I'll never forget those great stories you were sharing with me. Now I'm going to get drunk... RIP, friend.
Posted by: marc at July 15, 2006 13:16

It's shocking and sad, especially when one passes at such a young age. Although I did not know Alex personally his presence at various tournaments around the country had, so-to-speak, become a fixture for me. My condolenses to family and friends.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 15, 2006 14:27

Very sorry to hear about Aleks.

Regarding the Kasparov Internet simul question, he played several.

Greman simul

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=889

United Nations of Chess simul

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/archives/accoona_in_times_square.htm

And he did one on ICC in December 1995.

And I'm pretty sure there was at least one more with kids.

duif
Posted by: Duif at July 15, 2006 15:41

GMinem,

Kasparov played at least 3 Internet simuls, perhaps more. I will post the details shortly.

duif
Posted by: Duif at July 15, 2006 15:42

brings to mind the ol ogden nash poem

"the trouble with a kitten is that
eventually, it becomes a cat"
Posted by: narendra at July 15, 2006 16:44

Kittens are cool, but so are adult cats. Adult cats are calmer, they sleep more, and they eat less.
Posted by: Leto at July 15, 2006 21:58

I had just seen him last weekend here in Columbus, Ohio. Does anyone know the cause of death or what family he had?
Posted by: Evan Shelton at July 15, 2006 23:02

What a sad piece of news. I just had a nice conversation with Wojo at the World Open this year. I also got to run the blitz playoff he won at the Pittsburgh Open a few years ago, which is where we first talked.

They don't make 'em like Aleks anymore. RIP.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 16, 2006 00:27

I have heard a report about liver problems, but no further details were given.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 16, 2006 00:37

Other details are that he was born in the Soviet Union in 1963 and was jailed because he refused to serve in the Soviet Army. One source says that his father died in a Soviet prison. Apparently, Aleks was jailed due to defiance and put under very harsh conditions... sleeping with a single blanket in sub-zero temps.

When Poland gained indepence, he was released and went back to his ancestral Poland (Warsaw) and won the Polish Championship two times until he fell out of favor with the Polish Chess Federation. He then came to the U.S. and changed his federation affiliation. His incarceration apparently left a permanent scar on him and someone posted on a board that Wojo said his nerves were devastated. He smoked heavily.

A woman who claimed to have been a close friend sleep before going to the next tournament. He stated that he had a rigourous tournament schedule sometimes only getting a few hours of sleep. He won the $10,000 U.S. Grand Prix several times after accumulating the most points from tournament play in the U.S. circuit. It appeared as if he played in every tournament... even the small ones. He gained the dubious distinction of losing to 10-year old Fabiano Caruana. This set a record for the youngest player to beat a Grandmaster. Caruana is now 14 and an IM.

These sources were gathered from a few sites such as chessgames.com, Wikipedia and some other odd sites, so I cannot verify the veracity of the information.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 16, 2006 01:29

Please don't have a drink in Alex's memory. I think the opposite is more appropriate. It is clear that his severe liver problems, which caused him to die at age 43, were caused by heavy drinking. Maybe he would not have regretted the way he lived, but just maybe he would have...
Posted by: anon at July 16, 2006 02:19

I saw Aleks during the recent US championship in San Diego. I even spoke to him in Polish, but he didn't hear me, so focused was he on watching Nakamura's game while Alex' opponent was pondering his next move. Is that a fact that he drank too much? Liver disease happens to non-drinkers too. I am so sad...

Lukasz
Posted by: Lukasz Pruski at July 16, 2006 02:36

oops..I drank to him soon after hearing the bad news. Please don't be offended. It's just what Brothers of the bottle do. As a Brother of the chess world I also immediately looked at a few of his games. He left some great ones behind. I'm gonna go look at some more..
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 16, 2006 02:53

someone told me that he quit drinking, so i think that maybe that's why he won so many recent tournaments.
Posted by: anon at July 16, 2006 03:11

does anybody know what happened with Aleks and the Polish chess federation?
Posted by: anon at July 16, 2006 03:12

Just a small correction. Wojtkiewicz's father (Pavel Voitkevich) died in Riga in the beginning of 80ies due to the severe health problems - more or less a similar age and a cause of death as Alexander himself. He also drank heavily and had a strong caracter not accepting the Soviet's way of life. Maybe he was also jailed once, I am not sure now. He was also a gifted chess player and I think somewhere in 60ies or 70ies he was refused the Soviet master title (after completing the norm) after which he practically stopped playing chess but he nevertheless passed the love of game to his son.

Alexander was hiding from the Soviet army since 1982 and he was sentenced in summer 1986 for two years. In summer 1987 he was amnested and started playing in Riga again despite the ugly behaviour of chess authorities (for example they refused to award him when he was second in the Latvian blitz championship in 1987, I was lucky to be first then) but when he got the opportunity to move to Poland in 1988 he obviously did so immediately.
Posted by: Alexei Shirov at July 16, 2006 04:07

In Poland he offended some federation officials by telling them in public what he thought of them. Old communists just couldn't stand that someone had courage to oppose them and banned him from the game. He's very respected in Poland and always had many friends here.
Please feel free to drink in his memory. Im sure he would have nothing against it.
Posted by: marc at July 16, 2006 04:22

bottoms up Alex on some diet coke.
Posted by: Frank H at July 16, 2006 07:26

correction:

A bit of one of my sentences was accidently deleted above. It may give the wrong impression.

A woman who had claimed to have been a close friend stated that he only got a few hours of sleep before playing in the next tournament.

... is what I meant to say.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 16, 2006 09:53

Someone asked if Aleks had a drinking problem and if it affected his playing. Last year at the Ohio Chess Congress, he spent round one at the bar, then "fell asleep" at the board in round 2. He lost both games. It was sad to see him in that condition. However, when I saw him last (a week ago!) he was NOT drinking (despite the proximity of the hotel bar to our playing site, and just smoked a few cigarettes during his games.

Was he Russian or Polish? I'm unclear on that point.

I don't suppose they would consider putting his name on the Grand Prix from now on as a memorial. He surely earned it by playing in so many weekend tournaments!
Posted by: Evan Shelton at July 16, 2006 11:44

Daaim--

I was waiting for you to correct your earlier post by telling us who Aleks was sleeping with before a tournament. Drat!
Posted by: greg koster at July 16, 2006 12:12

The Soviet Union, like many other places in the world, identified one's "nationality" as ethnic heritage, rather than citizenship or where one was born.

Aleks was of Polish descent (that is, his father was Polish), born in Latvia, which was at that time part of the Soviet Union.

After refusing to serve in the Soviet army as part of a Latvian human rights movement, he was jailed for two years.

On being freed in 1986 he moved from Riga (Latvia) to Warsaw (Poland). He lived in Poland for sometime, winning two Polish Championships and listing Poland as his FIDE federation.

Eventually he moved to the US where he was a very active tournament player. He ultimately changed his FIDE federation to the US.

duif

Posted by: Duif at July 16, 2006 12:15

In Latvia he was learning chess from Mikhail Tal
Posted by: marc at July 16, 2006 13:16

Duif, you're being inaccurate. Alexander was released from the prison in 1987 and moved to Poland in 1988. In fact in February 1988 he still participated (and co-won) in the semi-final of Latvian championship but if my memory doesn't fail, the final that took place in March 1988 happened without his participation, so that might be the period when he was moving.

Refusing to serve in the army was not exactly 'Latvian human rights' movement, in fact the danger of being a Soviet soldier was known all around the big country and I remember my own dillema in 1989-1990. In any case Alexander had very clear negative ideas of Soviet regime that probably made absolutely impossible for him to go to the army unlike the most of players from his generation. He also told me once that he had good relations with the known scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov.
Posted by: Alexei Shirov at July 16, 2006 15:13

Thank you for the correction, my apologies for any confusion.

duif
Posted by: Duif at July 16, 2006 18:14

No problem, Duif, of course. The information I gave I know because I myself was playing chess in Riga in 1987 (since 1988 I have practically played only outside Latvia)and then it was very interesting to see Wojtkiewicz's return to the game. In 1982 I was yet competing only in children's events, so I just saw Alexander in one occasion playing blitz in the Verman park in Riga, just a few meters from the actual monument to Tal (opened in 2001).

For the sake of history, Wojtkiewicz at the age of 16 was the official member of Tal's training team during the interzonal in Riga in 1979 which Tal won brilliantly with I think, 14 out of 17, 2,5 points ahead of Polugaevsky. Far away from Karjakin's record who was World Champion's trainer having just turned 12 but still...
Posted by: Alexei Shirov at July 16, 2006 19:45

I was speaking to a physician friend and he spoke of symptoms he saw in Wojo of "ascites," or a fluid buildup in the abdomen area. He stated that Wojo has lost weigh but had picked up weight in the midsection which (to him) was a sign of liver disease. This physican is a very active player and stated that he had observed Wojo is several tournaments this year. He asked another player (friends with Wojo) about his condition and Wojo told the common friend that he was receiving treatment.

He was playing so well. My physician friend also stated that Wojo had developed a recent distaste for draws, apparently.

I interviewed Emory Tate at the World Open and he apparently held Wojo in high regard. He talked about how brilliantly Wojo played in their game. Tate said, "He played in the style of Tal." That game may turn out to be a classic.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 16, 2006 23:34

How do you pronounce "Wojtkiewicz"?

I'm a baseball fan, and there an ex-Red Sox player Doug mankiewicz and his name was pronounced

man-KAY-vitch
or
MAN-ka-vitch

so I am assuming "Wojtkiewicz" is promnounced

what-KAY-vitch
or
WHAT-ka-vitch.

Am I close?
Posted by: Mark G. CPA,PHD,WTF,BA,AA,SCA,NASCAR.... at July 17, 2006 08:33

Hmmm.
Posted by: Mark G at July 17, 2006 08:34

I've heard

Woyt-keh-vitch

Woyt-ka-vitch
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 17, 2006 08:37

When I played him in a simul at the 2000 US Open (St Paul) he intoduced himself as "Voit-kay-vich"
Posted by: Snowbear at July 17, 2006 09:06

Players interested in the psychology of the game, or in the nature of expertise itself, may want to read the following article, in the current issue of Scientific American:

Philip E. Ross, The Expert Mind (Scientific American, August 2006, 64-71). While the subject of the article is expertise and its origins, nearly all the examples are drawn from chess.

For those who have not yet seen this article, the arguments in it are as follows. The central thesis of the article is that experts are made, not born, and that the process of developing expertise involves studying at levels just beyond one’s current competence. The article cites several cases of players who became strong by studying the game, rather than by innate ability. It argues that practitioners in any field, including chess players, who work solely at one level of competence, are unlikely to advance beyond that level. By comparison, those who study until they reach a level of competence, and then study at the next level, will be able to surpass their competitors and achieve a higher level of expertise.

The article caveats this by acknowledging that the strongest players of the past were often more creative, in the sense that they had to develop technique on their own, and in some cases actually invented modern methods. Even so, the article tends to downplay their originality, arguing that even their creativity emerged from rigorous training. This argument is of course controversial, and one could respond that some players of the past single-handedly achieved skills that put them ahead of their time.

An interesting aspect of this thesis, which the article does not investigate, is that the human mind and the computer have radically different approaches to chess. The human mind develops long-term memory about positions, and the expert is apt to select only a among a range of higher-quality moves. By comparison, most computer programs still rely more on brute force computation than on qualitative selection.

Another point in the article that is worth noting is that expertise in one area does not necessarily translate into another. The article cites several instances of where expertise in fields that involve mathematics or logical reasoning is not correlated with ability in other areas that would make use of the same types of skills. In this sense, expertise in the human mind appears to be highly compartmentalized. This actually dovetails with the evidence that chess players who leave the game often go on to successful careers elsewhere. Their later success is not due to their ability at chess, but rather, their ability to engage in a similar learning process, so as to develop the expertise in their chosen professions.

Even though one may disagree with the article in places, or have some reservations about the strength of its statements, this piece makes for an interesting read.
Posted by: Dave50 at July 17, 2006 09:36

Its hard to discredit observational accounts of genius (ability beyond the ordinary) in children who have had little or no recourse to "training". Such as Tal multiplying 3 figure numbers in his head by the age of 3. If he was not born with that ability, I would like to be trained using his parents' methods! Maybe I'll still be able to make a nobel prize winning contribution in Science!
Posted by: d at July 17, 2006 09:58

The Psychology Today article about the Polgars (published last year, I believe), has much to say along these lines as well. I read it but don't recall much specifics, other than their father's deeply held conviction that -- rendering it in my own oversimplified, bastardized wording -- genius can be taught ... and his use of his daughters as a real-world test of his thesis.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 17, 2006 10:09

Lazlo Polgar didnt exactly choose a random sample... moreover, subjects must be controlled for IQ.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 17, 2006 10:30

Not that it matters much, but I wonder if Aleks pronounced it that way because that his kept the pronunciation of his original last name. Does the "W" sound as "V" in Polish? I've heard also "Voyt-keh-vich."
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 17, 2006 10:39

Aleks was great fun and it is terrible that he died so young. I have to wonder about any treatment he was receiving. A real shame.

"Wojtkiewicz" is pronounced VOIT-kay-vich. I know this as I was the clear winner of the Las Vegas Wojtkiewicz pronouncing contest last December judged by Aleks Wojtkiewicz himself. The last time I saw him was on my birthday in June also in Las Vegas. :(
Posted by: fluffy at July 17, 2006 12:04

Quoted:

I don't suppose they would consider putting his name on the Grand Prix from now on as a memorial. He surely earned it by playing in so many weekend tournaments!

Posted by: Evan Shelton at July 16, 2006 11:44

If the Grand Prix should be named after anyone, it should be named after the late GM Igor Ivanov. What Wojo did for three to four years, Igor did for most of the 80s.
Posted by: cynical at July 17, 2006 13:10

The "Polgar Experiment" proved one thing conclusively: The Polgar's Sisters Father was completely wrong.

He had three subjects and his "theories" only worked on one subject (Judith). The other "results" were: an average GM (Susan) and an average "strong" player (Sofia). Note that, in spite of her multiple achievements, I can't give much credit to Susan as a "player", because they were obtained (the achievements, that is) in women's competitions. If Father Polgar's theories were sound (and assuming he considered his daughters' intellects not inferior to those of their male fellow players), then it is easy to see that he failed 2 times out of three. By "failure" I mean that he didn't produce (2 out of 3 times) a world-class player (which is clearly the case with Judith).

All he proved is that you can maximize potential with a lot of work (but everyone knows that). His daughters' natural talents were developed to the max and that's all there is to that story...
Posted by: tgg at July 17, 2006 13:26

tgg, I must disagree. Laszlo Polgar's efforts produced two GM's among his three daughters. No method of instruction has a 100% success rate - Polgar's fell only one short of 100%.
Posted by: Zinger at July 17, 2006 13:40

Hi,

I am very saddened by the passing of Alex Wojtkiewicz. He was one of my best friends in the chess world (not that I have many). We traveled to tournaments together, played on the same team for a while, and I often stayed at his house during tournaments. He had a hard life-the prison, then also his wife left him and he could rarely see his son. So he had a gruff exterior but was a good person.

It is worth pointing out that he did not need to play as much as he did. He could have relaxed and focused on teaching, as many others have. But he truely loved chess. This might be part of the reason for his great results and his distaste for draws near the end. He certainly knew he was dying, so he couldn't afford to play anything but his best.

He will be missed.
Posted by: Bryan Smith at July 17, 2006 13:43

One detail I do recall about the Polgar article is that everyone close to them agreed that the MOST talented among the three was Sofia -- who gave up chess early, without even becoming a GM. My recollection is that both Susan and Judit shared that assessment. If one assumes they were being fully honest, then those two would have been far more qualified than anyone else quoted in the article to make such a judgment. (I don't recall any male super-GMs being quoted in the article.)

So, that would seem to shoot a big hole in tgg's theory.
Posted by: flyonthewall at July 17, 2006 16:30

It's easy to get confused, but Susan did not begin to play women-only events until well after her most significant achievements. She had already been the youngest GM ever. She deserves every bit of credit for her achievements in the first 5 years of her career, which were all played in non women-only events. Since several of her recent accomplishments have been in mixed events (for example, winning the US Blitz Championship and her recent exhibition event at the NY Mayor's tournament), it is my hope that we may eventually see her return to regular tournaments as well.

Respectfully,
duif
Posted by: Duif at July 17, 2006 18:12

Duif, Susan Polgar was not the youngest GM ever. It was Judit that broke Fischer's record. (Judit's record has been broken many times, since.) According to Susan's website, she would have been 21 or 22 when she won the GM title.

http://susanpolgar.com/polgarchess/achievements_polgar.pdf
Posted by: Icepick at July 17, 2006 23:30

Accrding to Susan Polgar's wikipedia entry, whe would have been 21 when she earned the GM title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polgar

Not sure how accurate this is, though.
Posted by: Icepick at July 17, 2006 23:32

Duif has lots of inaccuracies in her posts.
Posted by: peach at July 18, 2006 00:17

And she will be on Stern tommorow morning.... no kidding. I wonder how she feels about lesbian porn stars and drunken dwarves playing blitz in the buff?
Posted by: Baba Bouie at July 18, 2006 00:23

Like all people, I do of course have inaccuracies from time to time--I try to acknowledge them and correct them as soon as possible. (I haven't been feeling well lately, and made the mistake of posting without checking a source--something I normally don't do.)

So, yes, I mixed up Judit and Susan on the youngest GM, for which I do apologize--thank you for the correction on that. I was thinking of Susan's age 15 accomplishment, but that was being the #1 rated woman in the world, not the youngest GM.

However, the original poster said "I can't give much credit to Susan as a 'player' because [her accomplishments] were obtained in women's competitions...."

My main point was that Susan's original accomplishments, including earning the IGM title, came when she was mostly NOT playing women-only events. After all, the justification in 1987 for giving all the other women among the top group except Susan an extra 100 FIDE rating points was because THOSE women, and NOT the Polgars, had been playing mostly women-only events.

Susan became an International Master in 1984 and an International Grandmaster in 1991. She is currently ranked in the top 200 world players (men and women). Those are very real accomplishments, and worthy of respect.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/topl.phtml?code=700088

--duif
Posted by: Duif at July 18, 2006 01:28

http://www.chessdon.com/favorite.htm#Alexander_Wojtkiewicz_
Posted by: peach at July 18, 2006 02:02

Susan won the US blitz championship? I don't recall seeing that in Dirt.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 18, 2006 04:04

Duif, just to be clear, I thought the Judit-Susan switch was a relatively minor mistake, a mental fingerslip so to speak. I agree with your larger point regarding Susan and her accomplishments. The Polgar sisters developed playing in (what were then) men's events. Susan did start playing in women only events when she got older, but that came later.

Also, I had forgotten about the 100 rating bump for women back in the 1980s. I wonder if anyone tracked that to see if the women affected maintained their rating bump, slide back towards their "original" ratings, or improved?

One final question about that rating bump. Were the Polgars the only women to not receive the 100 points? I thought Pia Cramling was playing only in men's events by the mid-1980s. Did Cramling receive the bonus?
Posted by: Icepick at July 18, 2006 08:22

Duif is an an "internet expert" :-) a person with very little knowledge or qualifications. She will parrot anything she reads on a web page, without bothering to check the facts (look at her most recent series of innacurate statements on this thread, where she was corrected by Shirov).

The point I made is the if you take Susan Polgar's achievements as a REGULAR GM (not a woman who happens to be a GM), then they don't amount to a world-class player. She would be John Fedorowitz, not Seirawan; Mark Hebden, not Nigel Short; Yermolinski, not Shirov.
Posted by: tgg at July 18, 2006 09:59

Ah, jealousy. Duif has both knowledge and qualifications and they are frequently on display here. This doesn't, as she is the first to admit, make her omniscient. People with knowledge welcome corrections because that is how they gain more. People without knowledge insult others to gain attention.

Susan Polgar's continuing story is an interesting one. First off, you cannot remove gender from things even should you want to. Exceptions and rarities always attract attention and women in chess are both. You can then either do something with all this attention or be overwhelmed by it. Ignoring it is impossible, even irresponsible if you can use it to promote good causes and the game itself, as well as paying the rent.

I don't like to see chess played by women treated as something special because it isn't. 2500 chess is 2500 chess. But women chessplayers are special, and in several ways. Saying "if she were a man.." completely begs the question when the entire point is that women in chess, as in many areas, have both unique obstacles and benefits. They attract a disproportionate amount of attention (actually inversely proportionate) and this is a power that can be for good (or, in some views, ill) in many areas for chess and for themselves. And note that these days the attention paid female chessplayers is largely attention that would not otherwise go to chess at all.
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 10:27

A word about the three Polgar sisters and their later tournament selections:

After the three had each established themselves as chess prodigies (in mostly non-women-only events), there was a decision (reached by who, I have no idea) to have Susan and Sofia compete in primarily women-only events, and only have Judit try her luck in the main arena, so to speak. Check their tournament histories--it should bear this out. Why? I haven't the faintest idea.
Posted by: cynical at July 18, 2006 10:31

This is false. Other than a few Olympiads the Polgars practically never participated in women-only events. Susan later decided to go after the women's world championship. While winning and defending that title she didn't play in any other women-only events. (Again excepting the Olympiad.) They all played in some of the "women vs veterans" "dance" events (in which they didn't even face any women). When Sofi was mostly retired from pro chess and living in Israel she played the "women's board" in a few Israeli team championships. Other than those exceptions I doubt they ever played in any women-only events.

In other words, why would you post something so entirely wrong as fact without checking it?
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 11:11

Pretty dumb attempt at confusing ther issue, Mig.

I must remind you that the point of discussion is Father Polgar's (not a priest, I just forgot his name)contention that "genius can be tought". As you can see, we are not talking about women chess at all.

Genius is NOT gender-specific, so I pointed out that the only way Susan's achievements can be made to look bigger than they really are is by INTRODUCING the GENDER FACTOR into the argument, something which immediately cast a huge shadow of doubt on Father Polgar's crazy theories.

Now, if that's not clear enogh for you, think about it this way:

Father Polgar set out to create 3 chess geniuses and only came up with 1 world-class player (judith), a regular GM (Susan) and a strong master (Sofia).

Father doesn't always know best :-)
Posted by: tgg at July 18, 2006 11:19

I know I'd love to be able to fail as a chess genius and only be a "regular" GM or an IM.
Posted by: g at July 18, 2006 11:22

g wrote:

>>> I know I'd love to be able to fail as a chess genius and only be a "regular" GM or an IM.>>>

The Polgar sister didn't fail. It was their father's theory that failed. This topic is not about Susan, Judith or Sofia's careers or personal lifes. I don't consider ANY aof them a failed human being or a failed chess player.

The sisters are ok, in every sense of the word. The father's theories failed miserably. That's all there is to it.
Posted by: tgg at July 18, 2006 11:35

Many of the posts here don't mention what you now call the issue, tgg. But keep running, eventually you'll find an area so tiny even you might be able to defend it.

You have little knowledge of Lazlo Polgar's theories. You should do some reading instead of boasting your ignorance and compounding it with insults and stupidities. The Polgars' achievements as juniors are far more relevant to their father's concepts than what they decided to do with their lives as adults. He didn't set out to create world chess champions. Chess was only a tool. Required reading:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050614-000002.html
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 12:15

tgg, an important aspect of this is "How do you define genius?" What definition did Laszlo Polgar use?

I don't believe there is a 100% agreed upon definition of 'genius' for IQ measures, for example. But one usually encounters numbers between 130 to 140 being the starting point for 'genius' by IQ. That would translate (roughly, more precise figures welcome) into top 2% to top 1% of population in terms of IQ.

I'm not sure of how many active (or formerly active) tournament players there are in the world, but Judit and Susan Polgar would be in the top 1% by any measure, and Sofia is almost certainly in that range. By that kind of measure, Laszlo Polgar's theory would not be disproven by the results of his daughters.

So, what definition did Laszlo use?
Posted by: Icepick at July 18, 2006 12:23

Mig, you may have posted the answer to my questions before I posted them. I don't think I'll have time to read this in the afternoon, but I hope to get back to it later. Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Icepick at July 18, 2006 12:25

Quoted:

This is false. Other than a few Olympiads the Polgars practically never participated in women-only events. Susan later decided to go after the women's world championship. While winning and defending that title she didn't play in any other women-only events. (Again excepting the Olympiad.) They all played in some of the "women vs veterans" "dance" events (in which they didn't even face any women). When Sofi was mostly retired from pro chess and living in Israel she played the "women's board" in a few Israeli team championships. Other than those exceptions I doubt they ever played in any women-only events.

In other words, why would you post something so entirely wrong as fact without checking it?
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 11:11

Since you're usually on top of things when it comes to the veracity of facts, I re-checked my source.

My post should have read:

"...to have Susan and Sofia compete for the Women's title, while only Judit would try to contend for the men's title."

I had inferred that Susan and Sofia did not play as much in events not involved in qualifying for the Women's title; thank you for correcting my mistake.
Posted by: cynical at July 18, 2006 12:33

Sigh. Insulting trolls deleted from now on. Congrats, tgg, you got the attention you crave. Feel free to print this and caress yourself with it.
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 12:34

Well, before Mig posted the link I went back and read that article in its entirety, confident I'd find a direct quote from an academic psychologist that would directly refute tgg. I planned to then post the quote, knowing that tgg would inevitably respond with something like, "Psych professors are the last people you should listen to on a question of how the human brain works."

Unfortunately I found no such quote. One or two psychologists are mentioned as endorsing Lazslo Polgar's theories ... but the comments they made relate more to "expert-level mastery" than to "genius." In other words, the psychologists seem to be saying that intensive study of an intellectual activity, such as the Polgars did -- and not some innate talent -- is what makes people able to reach very high levels of proficiency, becoming accomplished violinists, GM-level chess players, etc.

So it comes down to a definitional question of "genius" versus "mastery" of a subject at a high, professional level. My feeling is that the writer of the article more or less intentionally equated those two different concepts, and Mr. Polgar himself probably did too, perhaps for marketing reasons. (His first book was titled, "Bringing Up Genius".)

So in a nutshell I think Mr. Polgar DID prove his theories, and that at least some psychologists who studied the outcome agree he did. But he (and not tgg) confused the issue, by mis-labeling what he sought to create as "genius," rather than merely "precocious mastery", or "high-level achievement", or some other less portentous but more precise term.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 18, 2006 12:40

Sofia never competed for the women's title. Of course she can provide more info herself, but by the time she went after the women's title Susan was making her own decisions. You could even make the case that by then most points about their upbringing and skills had been made, so why not make some money by taking the low-hanging fruit of the women's title? They had already made the title demonstrably obsolete by that point.
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 12:47

Well, we agree on that one, Jacob. Laslo Polgar didn't succeed in creating genius.
Posted by: tgg at July 18, 2006 12:49

"Genius" is always going to be disputed. It's not a technical term to all but a few people; it's more of a catch phrase that makes for good book titles and media attention. ("Bringing up High Level Achievement!" isn't going to fly off the shelves, I'm afraid.) "Prodigy" is similarly over- and misused.

The choice of chess was perhaps an unfortunately one. Unlike music or, say, painting, it's a head-to-head competitive endeavor that requires an obsessive and lifelong dedication. It is also ruthlessly measurable. I.e. if Judit became #1 and world champion would she then be a genius? Why, why not? Can someone who is "just" a chessplayer be a genius? Many seem to think so. Basically, what would the sisters had to have done? Better chess? More languages?
Posted by: Mig at July 18, 2006 12:59

Genius is supposed to fight his way through all obstacles and achieve his goal against the odds. So by this definition, genius cannot be brought up, because it should be all 'natural'.
On the contrary you have kids like young Mozart. So was he trained or not? Would he have become what he was without his father?

Klara Polgar, the mother, used to say that the real genius in the family is her husband. He certainly has an incredibly hard will - practically forcing his children to do as he says -, and he had to fight against Hungarian (communist) authoroties for decades. So did Susan, and a fight like this takes it's toll on the nerves.

Sofia is the artist of the three girls, she was very good at solving and creating chess problems. One story about her is that at night she would go to the bathroom only to solve problems instead of sleeping. Unfortunately she wasn't supported by her father, because he thought that problem solving is not a career.
I don't think she was ever truly fascinated by chess as a sport.

So did Polgar fail? Not as much as some others did who tried to follow in his footsteps. I will not say names, but I know of more than a few kids who were taken out of school and trained strictly, and they ended up nowhere. I feel sorry for them.
Posted by: Linux fan at July 18, 2006 17:44

Genius is supposed to fight his way through all obstacles and achieve his goal against the odds. So by this definition, genius cannot be brought up, because it should be all 'natural'.
On the contrary you have kids like young Mozart. So was he trained or not? Would he have become what he was without his father?

Klara Polgar, the mother, used to say that the real genius in the family is her husband. He certainly has an incredibly hard will - practically forcing his children to do as he says -, and he had to fight against Hungarian (communist) authoroties for decades. So did Susan, and a fight like this takes it's toll on the nerves.

Sofia is the artist of the three girls, she was very good at solving and creating chess problems. One story about her is that at night she would go to the bathroom only to solve problems instead of sleeping. Unfortunately she wasn't supported by her father, because he thought that problem solving is not a career.
I don't think she was ever truly fascinated by chess as a sport.

So did Polgar fail? Not as much as some others did who tried to follow in his footsteps. I will not say names, but I know of more than a few kids who were taken out of school and trained strictly, and they ended up nowhere. I feel sorry for them.
Posted by: Linux fan at July 18, 2006 17:48

Are These cats from Villa Crespo Argentina?
Ja,Ja ja
Esa es la tema
Gustavo y Cecilia Argentina
Posted by: Gustavo Bengochea at July 18, 2006 23:22

Sex comparisons in IQ-intensive competitions are meaningful because 1) mean male IQs exceed mean female IQs by 4 to 5 points; and 2) the female IQ distribution is tighter.

A Susan Polgar who plays 2550 FIDE chess is probably comparable to a Kraminik or Anand in specialness and relative accomplishment -- even though the chess is "ordinary" by male standards.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 19, 2006 12:12

Thank you, Mig, for the link to the article in "Psychology Today".
I read there (as I have often read before):
"In 1991, when Susan was 21, she became the first woman ever to earn the designation Grandmaster, the World Chess Federation's title for top-ranked players."
I had always thought it was Nona Gaprindashvili who was the first woman to get the "real" GM title? How did I get this idea?
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at July 19, 2006 13:23

GM Susan Polgar was the first woman to earn the IGM title through the same norm system that the men used.

Nona Gaprindashvili and Maia Chiburdandize had earlier been awarded the title without the requisite norms, in recognition of their career accomplishments, including winning the gender-segregated Women's World Championship title.

Today the winner of that event is awarded a GM title without a norm requirement, as is the winner of the Junior World Championship title.

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0101

--duif
Posted by: Duif at July 19, 2006 17:45

Thank you, Duif!
I can remember days long gone by when the winner of the Junior World Championship title was awarded the *IM* title, and was usually very happy about it.
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at July 19, 2006 18:05

Right, Charles. While Karpov was a World Junior Champion, so were Julio Kaplan and Mark Diesen -- neither of whom ever made it to GM.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 19, 2006 19:03

Number of hits per Google search:

People -

Britney Spears 50 million
Condoleezza Rice 15m
Winston Churchill 14m
Gary Kasparov 3m
Judit Polgar 173,000
Susan Polgar 172,000
Jon Jacobs 91,000 (mostly a 'a maverick independent filmmaker')
Mig Greengard 44,800
Vesselin Topalov 16,400
Maliq Soter 178

Sports -

Football 698m (overlaps some of soccer 395m)
Baseball 440m
Basketball 323m
Poker 201m
Chess 75m
Snooker 28m
Ice hockey 23m
Table tennis 17m

What does this mean? We need trained social scientists to tell us the answers.
Posted by: gg at July 20, 2006 06:52

I'm not a trained social scientist but I play one on TV. I say it means I've spent way too much of my life online. And too little of it playing basketball.
Posted by: Mig at July 20, 2006 07:15

"Hockey" gets 227 million hits, not 23million, and most are for ice hockey. Googling "ice hockey" is like googling "American football" (a mere 9 million hits). They only call it "ice hockey" in countries where grass hockey is more popular. No prizes for guessing where I'm from.

It's interesting that the player, Vesselin Topalov, is outranked by the journalist, Mig Greenguard.
Posted by: Jim Foster at July 20, 2006 09:39

This blog artificially raises my count dramatically. Discarding the countless Ninja pages probably drops my count 90%.
Posted by: Mig at July 20, 2006 10:22

It raises my count too. I'm up to about four now.
Posted by: Jim Foster at July 20, 2006 10:38

But I see my uni-name status costs me a few hits, I hasten to add! Like Christ and Cher I'm often referred to on chess pages without a last name since there aren't many other Migs in the biz or in general. Searching for the terms "mig" and "chess" together turns up various pages "mig greengard" does not. Probably for the best since there are some seriously idiotic pages and pictures of me out there.

The tricky part is in the dating game, especially online dating where googling the person is SOP when you get to full name familiarity. Potential soul-mates looking me up would get "Perspective, Harvard-Radcliffe's Liberal Monthly" and "SchemingMind.com" on the top hits. Hmm. But all the chess is probably enough to freak them out a little, although I must say it never seemed to do any harm. Even better, I'm off the market now :-)
Posted by: Mig at July 20, 2006 10:55

Searching for me plus the word chess and minus "ninja" and "dirt" cuts it to around 10,000, which still seems high. But I guess I've been around for a while in online chess, around nine years not counting Usenet, and longevity often has more to do with these things than popularity.
Posted by: Mig at July 20, 2006 10:59

If you spell "Veselin Topalov" correctly, you get 271k, much more than the 16k reported by the search for "Vesselin" above.
Posted by: Nick at July 20, 2006 11:08

If Googling a date (presumably by the 3rd or 4th date) is now de rigeur as Mig indicated, then I guess I'm REALLY stuck with my wife for better or worse (like I swore at the altar at my weadding).

I can't afford to EVER go back "on the market" -- unless I figure out a painless way to explain all those Google hits for a namesake best known for his "Different Loving" book and website, devoted to sexual dominance and submission.

Fortunately for me, THAT Jon Jacobs died a year or so ago. So the top of the JJ hit list now is dominated by the JJ who makes films like "The Girl With the Hungry Eyes." That's an alter-ego I can live with, I guess.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 20, 2006 12:04

Apparently Wojo did not die of liver problems. He died from a perforated intensive and thus succumbed to massive internal bleeding. So initial reports about his death were incorrect, so the information I posted earlier was also in error. It is uncertain (and I suppose it doesn't matter) whether he was suffering from a liver ailment, but his cause of death was due to a rupture in his intestine.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 21, 2006 08:42

... that is perforated intenstine.

ChessBase.com reports that by the time he arrived at the hospital there was nothing that could be done for him. See addendum...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3234
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 21, 2006 08:44

third try... perforated intestine... and I was once in a spelling bee. (smile)

I also wanted to mentioned that I have Wojo's game with Emory Tate which was said to be brilliant. I will post a note when the game is available.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 21, 2006 08:51