Blind Stealth

Also @ Chessbase's Spanish site:
http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=4710
Some pics of Topalov with a handkerchief covering his face playing against a soccer player, a cyclist and a businessman.

Just think, if the World Championship was a blindfold event, there wouldn't have been Toiletgate.

well yea, they wouldn't of been able to find the toilets for a start

The should play Fischer-random games if they just want to escape the boredom that has engulfed normal chess, Steinitz was fond of it, see

Fischer random in 1875 :

http://www.chesscentral.com/game-chess/fischer-random.htm

yeah inferior chess. check Leko-Morozevich from Amber this year..

I recall a Kramnik-Topalov blindfold game that was simply amazing. (The one where Kramnik ignores a Rook that is en prise at the end because he has seen a lovely mate.)
I am sure many GMs would be proud to have played it "sighted".

agreed John.

However, Amber is somewhat excused as it's not "completely" blindfold. The players are allowed to look at an empty board. I guess that helps somewhat...

ov,

Very nice link.

Doesn't Ivanchuk basically play all his games blindfold?

Blindfold chess allows top GMs to play each other without putting their ratings or tons of prestige on the line.

Mig writes: "Blindfold is a pleasing stunt, but as I've said before about Melody Amber, all it boils down to is inferior chess with the occasional "wow, very nice... for blindfold" and the occasional ridiculous blunder."

Can't exactly that be said of man vs. machine matches?

Mig, you never mention blindfold play without some sort of disparaging remark. I don't agree. Chess has always been admired for demonstrating the power of the human brain, and blindfold play enhances these achievements. Now computers have undercut chess badly, since a 10-year old kid can tell a GM that he can beat him by plugging moves intlo a dinky laptop. You beat a dead horse by reminding everyone that blindfold is accompanied by more blunders--you are missing what is wonderful. Blindfold is a wonderful way to show the genius of a human being, even when computers are running away with the prizes. A person who is not "wowed" by witnessing Judit Polgar playing blindfold against Topolav must be very grouchy, indeed.

The same can also be said of Blitz and Rapid chess.

I played once in the 4NCL. The site was an old RAF station at High Ercall, in the wilds of Shropshire. It transpired that the organizers had taken everything into account ... except chess equipment. It needed to be brought in from Birmingham. During the delay of several hours, I suggested a few times that the best solution was to change the name of the league to 4NBCL and get on with the games. Excuse #473 for losing a chess game: they wouldn't let me play blindfold when it was clearly called for!?

But while we're on the subject of stunts, I have a question for the knowledgeable denizens of chessninja:

Who is the World Simultaneous Blindfold Chess Champion?

and by that I mean: which living person who has played the greatest number of simul blindfold games? The conditions of play can be argued about later. Note: Koltanowski, Najdorf, Alekhine, Reti, and Flesch are all dead.

Can anybody beat 27 simul blindfold games? No, no, not me, but somebody even less famous.

I really hate stunt-chess, which is why I have even avoided a few good rapid/blitz tournament over the years.

But I usually replay Amber blindfold games and those, considering the handicap of both GMs and even without considering it, are generally excellent.

Game Two and rapid Game Four in Elista were obviously blindfold games.

>Mig, you never mention blindfold play without some sort of disparaging remark. >

There is hardly any insult which is not true.

Blindfold chess is circus which impresses only the amateurs who have little, if at all, idea of chess
and thus cant be impresses by a remarkable game.
They are just blind to it.

It is degrading chess or at least aknowledging that you can't make it by it alone.

It is alike a girl singing in miniskirt : it is nice to watch
the song but it is not trying to impress by voice
and interpretation but by legs and panties.
It would have great success even if sung to
deaf people .

> Amber is somewhat excused as it's not "completely" blindfold. The players are allowed to look at an empty board. I guess that helps somewhat.>

Not really (if you are familiar with blindfold)
but it helps the spectators keep in mind what the heck the players are doing.
Otherwise the show would look bizarre.

It would be interesting to know whether seeing an empty board helps at all: intuitively I wouldn't think so at all, but I've not tried. On the other hand I really doubt whether playing one game blindfold affects the quality all that much. You often see strong players - Ivanchuk and Svidler in particular - looking away from the board to check their calculations. Of course you're going to get the more frequent gross blunders. It would actually be interesting to see a few 2500 GMs allowed into Monaco playing sighted. My guess is they'd not do very well.

Ovidiu is right of course that there's a element of showmanship and selling the game to the ignorant about it, but so what? I don't have a problem with girls singing in miniskirts and to judge from what I see on TV I'm not alone. It's foolish to be snobbish about these things.

I like singing girls in miniskirts! :-)

If a girl can sing, I can't imagine her wearing a miniskirt makes the singing any worse.

Spectators at Amber also look at an empty board?

I would imagine they look at a full one and GMs look at an empty one.

>It would be interesting to know whether seeing an >empty board helps at all: intuitively I wouldn't >think so at all, but I've not tried.

I have played a lot of blindfold years ago but I don't remember anyone saying that an empty board to stare during the game would make it easier.
It may be true however, I have not tried this way too so as tell the difference (if any).

>On the other hand I really doubt whether playing >one game blindfold affects the quality all that >much.

It does, no doubt here.

>You often see strong players - Ivanchuk and Svidler in particular - looking away from the >board to check their calculations.

yes, when calculating a deep variation whose end
position is much different than the present position it actually helps to look away..but then you have return to the present one to start to calculate a new variation.
As you know they do not run away from the table as soon as a move is made by the opponent, let's not get absurd.

>Of course you're going to get the more frequent >gross blunders.

why ? you have just said that it doesn't affect much the quality of play.

You are going to see also a lot of poor quality,"mechanical", moves as the tendency to go in calculations is inhibited by the fear of going astray badly

>Ovidiu is right of course that there's a element of showmanship and selling the game to the >ignorant about it, but so what?

I am not ignorant, why watching a game that I know is of poorer quality then played normal. I am not impressed of blindfold and I would like to see a game of as much qulity as possible

> I don't have a problem with girls singing in miniskirts and to judge from what I see on TV I'm not alone. >

I don't have either but I do not do it for the music, at most I think of the music played as "ambiental music" meant to enhance the enjoyment of perceiving the "other" point.

When was the last when you had an erection while
listening Beethoven ?

I don't like blindfold. What does it prove? Reminds me of some guys who know the telephone book of Manhattan by heart. Interesting? Not really.

Yes.

In constrast a real Topa-Judith 6 games match (i.e, not blindfold and irrespective of Judith's skirt lenght) would have been a must see now after the 0-2 minitach of Essent and being given that both are true players.

Well, let's hope that Fritz-Kramnik is going to be interesting. And it going to be save that Chessbase is will "pre-arrange" it to end "3-3" so as to have both of them appear in good light and advertise eachother.

Well, for one thing, it proves that these GMs who we often criticize are able to play without seeing the board far better than we can with the board in sight.

I agree that it doesn't prove one GM's superiority over the other. But that is not the only reason we watch chess.

>I agree that it doesn't prove one GM's superiority over the other. But that is not the only reason we watch chess.>

The other being the quality of games?
No..Then ?

What's next ? Watching on TV at the Olympiad of the handicapped persons or at atheletic competitions where the runners have
weights attached to their legs (and still they can outrun you) ?

I'd be surprised if 5% of Daily Dirt bloggers could tell the difference between ten or twenty randomly chosen sighted and non-sighted games by top GMs. So for us, Topalov-Polgar is just more good chess.

An incidental benefit to blindfold chess is that there's no need for a "Topalov wall." Will Corus have one?

so for the rest of us

When the heck is Kramnik-Fritz again? For some reason I thought it was this month, but I'm guessing December at this point.

No, it will start saturday and I'm there!

I can certainly tell the difference between blind/non-blind games by top players -- not perfectly, and occasionally there will be excellently played blind games, but in general the difference is clear. Blind games tend to be more superficial, less complex, and -- of course -- feature many more egregious blunders.

Yah, I agree, the Amber games, our only significant sample, often have a random look to them even without the blunders. And what's the point of watching 2700's play like 2300's with the occasional 1200 blunder? A little show is fine, but it seems like a waste of talent to treat it like a serious event no matter how competitive they are.

I agree with Mig. In fact every year during Melody Amber I think: What a waste of money; why doesn't the sponsor just have a Dortmund-like super-tournament instead? [Or at least make the event ALL blindfold or ALL rapid--mixing the two doesn't help.] If I had a couple hundred thousand euros to blow, I wouldn't be sponsoring a "holiday" tournament; I'd put on something meaningful and serious.

Thanks Freitag. So, you will be going? That's great. Be sure to give us your thoughts

Almost all top GMs are capable of playing blindfold and have no problem playing that. Except for the rare blunder, the quality is the same as the rapids. e.g compare the rapids and blindfold at Amber - there is not much difference except for the rare blunder.

Kapalik

I keep you updated, Chris. I'm not there during the week but at least two times in the weekend. I expect a win by Fritz with 4:2 or 3,5:2,5
It's good they make an invent like this in a western country in the heart of Europe and not somewhere were only some gauchos can watch.

Responding to post by: Ovidiu at November 22, 2006 05:31
{
Steinitz was fond of it, see
Fischer random in 1875 :

http://www.chesscentral.com/game-chess/fischer-random.htm
}

Unforunately at that link, the SAN (Standard Algebraic Notation) given for the chess960 (FRC) game has at minimum two gross errors.

[A] Black could not have moved 4... c3, obviously. I tried reinterpreting that notation as 4... c6, but that failed when the notation later says 9... c6.

[B] White never castled. His first king move was 16. Kc2, which cannot be possible.

- - - -

SAN notation errors are more common in chess960 (FRC) than in traditional chess (or "chess1").

This is probably because in chess1 the pieces repeat the same subset of familiar placements and interrelationships game after game.

In comparison chess960 has a broader variety of interrelationships between the pieces, and we are not yet routinely familiar with most of them.

One remedy to avoid chess960 notation errors is LAN (Long Algebraic Notation), instead of SAN.

I have noticed many books discuss analysis ideas using LAN, but they return to SAN for live moves. Why do those books switch to LAN? I presume because the origin square information is helpful to human readers. It seems a shame then that SAN is usually used for live moves.

Personally I prefer to go a few steps further than LAN. I use CCRAN (Colorized Concise Reversible Algebraic Notation) notation.

SAN: 22. Bg4 Qf6 23. Rxc3

LAN: 22. Bf3-g4 Qf5-f6 23. Rg3xc3

CRAN: 22. Bf3g4 Qf56 23. Rg3:Nc

CCRAN: 22. Tf3g4 qf56 23. Rg3:nc

The ideas in CRAN are (1) record the origin square letter and digit first, (2) notate the destination square only with new info - meaning do not repeat the same letter or digit from the origin, and (3) record the type of piece taken.

For me CCRAN was so easy to get used to that I felt no transition period, it was nearly instant.

The 'Blind Chess World Duel', I see.

Topalov still seems to be suffering from delusions of grandeur. It must be strange having to play events without 'World' in the title.

Blindfold awes me, but I still cant escape a feeling similar to Mig"s that its a gimmick. Still nice to know that Toaplov doesnt suffer from delusions of grandeur and is willing to try most things that have some appeal to the public. Great how he hasnt sulked or descended to avoiding all events like for example some others might have done...

Of course he's willing to try things that appeal to the public. Appealing to the public means money, and if there's one thing which is clear from Topalov's career, it's his liking for that.

>It would be interesting to know whether seeing an >empty board helps at all: intuitively I wouldn't >think so at all, but I've not tried.

I've played both ways and for a patzer like me an empty board is definitely helpful. (I've noticed that when I played my old table chess computer without the pieces because one day I was too lazy to set them up again after a game.) Most stronger players I've asked about it say it doesn't matter. I wonder if that's really true. I can imagine though that at higher levels the difference is much less because the visualisation abilities are so much better.

I guess if you're raising money for charity, appealing to the public means money. Rarely has it meant money for Chess.

www.ajedrezbilbao.com

>>I agree that it doesn't prove one GM's superiority over the other. But that is not the only reason we watch chess.>

>The other being the quality of games?No..Then ?What's next ? Watching on TV at the Olympiad of the handicapped persons or at atheletic competitions where the runners have
weights attached to their legs (and still they can outrun you) ?<

That changes nothing. Though I admit, seeing how GMs would function in a Harrison Bergeron atmosphere sounds interesting.