I'm playing a 2191 Player

It would be interesting to see what the first chess column said.

Perhaps gave a game by Philidor - who knows.

A Numismatist. (is that correct?)

Fred Reinfeld wrote books on coin collecting as well as chess.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
It would be interesting to see what the first chess column said.

Perhaps gave a game by Philidor - who knows.

[b]A Numismatist. (is that correct?)

Fred Reinfeld wrote books on coin collecting as well as chess.[/b]

Yes, that's right. Although I think the label "numismatist" is reserved for someone with a little more expertise than myself. I'm very knowledgable but I'm far from an expert.

Originally posted by tomtom232
It won't be long before you're off on your next wacky idea and still low 1600s while I practice consistently with proven methods. :p

whacky idea? my good sir, even when i lose, i will lose in style! 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its the art of style my good man, you may trawl the worlds chess books, complete a zillion tactical exercises, book up on your favourite opening, but it will be in vain, for style cannot be taught, it needs to be developed from within, every move like a brush stroke on a canvas, meaningless on its own, but part of a whole of which the constituent par thoughts upon nature itself, we shall develop the art of style my friend, the art of style! 🙂

Thank you dear robbie... I definitely follow you.

First, aesthetic considerations don't mean that you don't work by the way. It requires a lot of work.

Second, without any aesthetic perspective you could not even play chess. This is the thing we have to insist upon, for I am afraid not everybody is conscious of it. Without aesthetics, you would not be able to play chess.

Of course there are logics. But there are logics only in the more general frame of what you see. and how do you learn to see, if not by developing your visual sensitiveness? The most important is to become sensitive. And how would call that, if you want to make a method out of it? aesthetics, of course. Aesthetics, in chess is that special thing, which is not learning tactics, which is not strategy, which is not opening or endgame; but which is in all of them: being sensitive to what you see.

After all, what is the concrete difference between a good and a bad player ? Everybody will tell you. Even the bad player himself will tell you: he didn't see. That's the fundamental experience of the loosing chess player. He didn't see what the winning player saw. He was not sensitive enough.
Even for basic tactical exercises: when people fail to do a mate in two, it's not because they are not capable to calculate, for there would be too much data. It's only because they couldn't see.

Having an aesthetic approach to chess only means you put that problem at the top, and you think it is the most important problem of chess.
But I guess people should read the aerial chess tutorial to understand what "being sensitive to chess" means.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I guess the thread kind of went random.

I only know the names of two chess player, Bobby Fisher and Gary Kasparov (and I know the last names of some where openings are named after them).

Who would you consider the most fascinating? Bobby Fisher is a heck of a story. Any players with interesting stories?

I am certain this is not what is meant, but...some years ago I was looking for parking in Pasadena when in the pedestrian walkway a green suited, book carrying and bearded Bobby Fischer was making his way across the street.

I was surprised, " hit him with truck", I thought but before I could react he reached the safety of the curb and walked quickly away.

I also have several signed books by M. Tal whom i cornered at an American Open (R) which, that year, was also a qualifying cycle for F.I.D.E.