--0-1403623671-1036001343=:14766
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I met Bobby Fischer and I can tell you this,he is not a nomad or a nomad type
at all. He is the complete paranoid. Do you know what he did for the Iceland
games? He had his fillings removed because he was paranoid that the
then KGB had gotten in there and was spying on him in one way or another.
The man is a genius. I think his brain is the cross over between the flows
of the schizo type energy and the paranoiac strains as exemplified by the two poles
Guattari writes about in A/O.
George Steiner wrote a grand book about the game in Iceland and does a close
reading of the whole event. He examines chess and its relation
to literature power and madness. It's been ages since I read it,
but here is one sentence which stayed in memory.
The context is Steiner is describing Fischer renting a room with
no windows as he prepares for his game.
"I suspect by some strange magic of schizophrenia that when Fischer plays by
himself that he wins." Which is prob. true. Meeting him was pure chance.
I was at a chess tournament where there were a generation
of whiz kids, one a Canadian boy the son of a mathematician and the other his sister. This is was at a match in 1997 in New York. Not a match
but a tournament and Fischer was there. He looked old and tired, and very paranoid in a sort of subdued way. He was over his born again phase by then.I am not certain of this, but he has since become what he always was a genius with no belief and probably the greatest chess player in history. He raised the beam so high that even Russians cannot quite figure him out. Steiner has some great stuff about his moves in the book. His work with queens and opening is amazing, almost impossible to imagine until you see, the risk taking is very striking and how he managd to win while doing so is even more amazing. Nerves and concentration. Simultaneous vision of the whole board.
Well these kids were all doing these games and one of them was having a problem .
He had played about 5 games and had won them all and now the match was one of these 10 players at a time routines, and with one master observing and maybe two or three grand masters judging . The chess world is a strange world. Of course everyone knew Fischer was there and they were nervous but the kids were not as nervous as the adults. Fischer rarely attends anything and is not known for having good manners of any sort.
In the midst of this time at a time match the younger boy, who some were claiming was going to be the world's next Fischer, was dragging his feet over something, in one of the games. And Fischer was watching for about a, I'd say about 2minutes. The kid you have to realize was being clocked and each move had to be responded to in one minute. The little Canadian kid was getting pale and you could see he was jammed. Yes, yes they were being coached, and each player could consult a coach when jammed. Fischer was asked what he thought after the game was over, and by the way the Canadian boy lost that particular section of the game. They set the boards up again and the whole dynamic. Fischer began to play -- and you have to realize he beat his first grand master at I think, 12. One grand master and 9 top notch players were set against Fischer. So they did the same thing. 10 players and one grand master. All top notch. ...It's as if Fischer got sentimental and decided to be human and take an interest in the Canadian player...The games lasted 20 minutes and Fischer recreated the whole scenario that the Canadian lad had been having problems with, and in less than the alloted time had turned the series of games around and won. It was breathtaking and almost impossible to understand. It's as he had hardly thought at all. His eyes would blink very fast and then bang bang hands began to move no hesitations all over the boards and ,, hahah you should have seen this grand master. He was anxious.
When Fischer had recreated the situation the Canadian kid had been facing he thought about for maybe a nano second looked at the kid and I don't know some look went from one to the other, and it was over. He made the requisite move solved the problem and it was over. The look exchanged between them was non-verbal there was not a hint of language. I think they spoke to one another in ESP. Steiner says chess players brains work on another level. They do not see things in the same that their minds work 100 times faster, when playing chess, than anyone else's.
I think he is right. It was spooky. There is this quirky story by Edgar Allan Poe called Rue Morgue. It starts out with a bit about chess and checker. He says checkers is an intelligent man's game and chess merely one of concentration. he might be right, but what does concentration mean at the level of a Fischer or even say a notable grand master like M. Duchamp. Nabakov has also written about chess.
Those are my two cents.
King's pawn destratify, double pincer move!!~
Kevin Sanchez <heliogabalus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:it's not so yin-and-yang a matter, Shin: some of the best chess-players have been more nomadic players (take Bobby Fischer), and yes, Go - like every other war game - potentially succumbs to statist tracings. D&G are not saying Go is cool and Chess sucks - it's more naunced a passage which points out the essential royal and nomadic tendencies inherent in both games.
seeing this, even though Go does require a sweeping, 'majoritarian' movement across the board, it's often a single Go-piece which makes the difference in this continuous process of capture. (as i responded in that list-serv thread i cited, Go could theorhetically continue on forever if one kept increasing the size of the board during play, it'd only get more fun as i tried to encircle all your previously-made territories - Chess, however, must have a uniform board-size and would definitely lose it's appeal if the board were infinite since the King could just run in the opposite direction.) in fact, because Chess is coded explains why it must create space for such weird decodings - the 5th-rank 'en-passent' and the 8th-rank 'promoting' moves of the pawn, for example. as D&G write (paraphrasing): how could a radical particle be created anywhere but a giant superconducter? (or whatever those centrifugal thingys are called)
lastly, let's be very clear: there's nothing wrong with desiring to increase one's territory - Nietzsche's Will to Power demands nothing less of his children (gay neo-barbarians). likewise, D&G's slogan: 'make a rhizome' and 'make a war machine' - grow offshots everywhere, amplify intensity, infect strata and turn them against the State, be all over the fuckin place, deterritorialize and explode.
and yes, there's always the danger of micro-fascisms, of annihilation and all-too-sudden destructions, which is precisely why hyper-active resistance will always be a must - as Foucault said, 'there's always something to do' which means there's always some circle of influence yet to be determined.
we gotta play hard.
:k
--
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:36:49 Shin hee wrote:
>You know this particular passage has me scratching my head and wrinkling my >nose a little... the latter because it smells a little Orientalist and the >former because I have a hunch that really this is a very productive passage >that not only works in the register of analogy but also as a template for >strategization in general--but also engenders more problems than provides >solutions. Case in point: the nature of Go is very tricky. Go requires >defeat of an opponent made possible through sweeping, total, majoritarian >movement across the board, yes? So.... sure, go strikes me as very >molecluar, very much in the spirit of the undifferentiated BwO, but Go also >strikes me as flirting with a totalitarian energy. OK, the state modeled >after monarchical/familial organization (chess) oviously sucks. However, >the state modeled after a mode of deploying pieces across bounded space in >order to territorialize and doing so by completely resisting the >singularity of the piece itself (in order to gain maximum mobility)... >well...
>
>This passage also sticks out to me because I think that even within chess >there is a quality of immanence that may go unrecognized but makes an >awfully cute tassle in an otherwise dreary hat... the en passant move that >the pawn can make in the 5th rank strikes me as a nice little gesture >towards traversability. That is, a diagonal movement that happens in a >moment of direct confrontation but ends up in capturing the opponent's >piece precisely because it resists a predictably onward march? It's good >to chew on.
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
--0-1403623671-1036001343=:14766
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>I met Bobby Fischer and I can tell you this,he is not a nomad or a nomad type
<P>at all. He is the complete paranoid. Do you know what he did for the Iceland
<P>games? He had his fillings removed because he was paranoid that the
<P>then KGB had gotten in there and was spying on him in one way or another.
<P>The man is a genius. I think his brain is the cross over between the flows
<P>of the schizo type energy and the paranoiac strains as exemplified by the two poles
<P>Guattari writes about in A/O.
<P>George Steiner wrote a grand book about the game in Iceland and does a close
<P>reading of the whole event. He examines chess and its relation
<P>to literature power and madness. It's been ages since I read it,
<P>but here is one sentence which stayed in memory.
<P>The context is Steiner is describing Fischer renting a room with
<P>no windows as he prepares for his game.
<P>"I suspect by some strange magic of schizophrenia that when Fischer plays by
<P>himself that he wins." Which is prob. true. Meeting him was pure chance.
<P>I was at a chess tournament where there were a generation
<P>of whiz kids, one a Canadian boy the son of a mathematician and the other his sister. This is was at a match in 1997 in New York. Not a match
<P>but a tournament and Fischer was there. He looked old and tired, and very paranoid in a sort of subdued way. He was over his born again phase by then.I am not certain of this, but he has since become what he always was a genius with no belief and probably the greatest chess player in history. He raised the beam so high that even Russians cannot quite figure him out. Steiner has some great stuff about his moves in the book. His work with queens and opening is amazing, almost impossible to imagine until you see, the risk taking is very striking and how he managd to win while doing so is even more amazing. Nerves and concentration. Simultaneous vision of the whole board.
<P>Well these kids were all doing these games and one of them was having a problem .
<P>He had played about 5 games and had won them all and now the match was one of these 10 players at a time routines, and with one master observing and maybe two or three grand masters judging . The chess world is a strange world. Of course everyone knew Fischer was there and they were nervous but the kids were not as nervous as the adults. Fischer rarely attends anything and is not known for having good manners of any sort.
<P>In the midst of this time at a time match the younger boy, who some were claiming was going to be the world's next Fischer, was dragging his feet over something, in one of the games. And Fischer was watching for about a, I'd say about 2minutes. The kid you have to realize was being clocked and each move had to be responded to in one minute. The little Canadian kid was getting pale and you could see he was jammed. Yes, yes they were being coached, and each player could consult a coach when jammed. Fischer was asked what he thought after the game was over, and by the way the Canadian boy lost that particular section of the game. They set the boards up again and the whole dynamic. Fischer began to play -- and you have to realize he beat his first grand master at I think, 12. One grand master and 9 top notch players were set against Fischer. So they did the same thing. 10 players and one grand master. All top notch. ...It's as if Fischer got sentimental and decided to be human and take an interest in the Canadian player...The games lasted 20 minutes and Fischer recreated the whole scenario that the Canadian lad had been having problems with, and in less than the alloted time had turned the series of games around and won. It was breathtaking and almost impossible to understand. It's as he had hardly thought at all. His eyes would blink very fast and then bang bang hands began to move no hesitations all over the boards and ,, hahah you should have seen this grand master. He was anxious.
<P>When Fischer had recreated the situation the Canadian kid had been facing he thought about for maybe a nano second looked at the kid and I don't know some look went from one to the other, and it was over. He made the requisite move solved the problem and it was over. The look exchanged between them was non-verbal there was not a hint of language. I think they spoke to one another in ESP. Steiner says chess players brains work on another level. They do not see things in the same that their minds work 100 times faster, when playing chess, than anyone else's.
<P>I think he is right. It was spooky. There is this quirky story by Edgar Allan Poe called Rue Morgue. It starts out with a bit about chess and checker. He says checkers is an intelligent man's game and chess merely one of concentration. he might be right, but what does concentration mean at the level of a Fischer or even say a notable grand master like M. Duchamp. Nabakov has also written about chess.
<P>Those are my two cents.
<P>King's pawn destratify, double pincer move!!~
<P> <B><I>Kevin Sanchez <heliogabalus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">it's not so yin-and-yang a matter, Shin: some of the best chess-players have been more nomadic players (take Bobby Fischer), and yes, Go - like every other war game - potentially succumbs to statist tracings. D&G are not saying Go is cool and Chess sucks - it's more naunced a passage which points out the essential royal and nomadic tendencies inherent in both games. <BR><BR>seeing this, even though Go does require a sweeping, 'majoritarian' movement across the board, it's often a single Go-piece which makes the difference in this continuous process of capture. (as i responded in that list-serv thread i cited, Go could theorhetically continue on forever if one kept increasing the size of the board during play, it'd only get more fun as i tried to encircle all your previously-made territories - Chess, however, must have a uniform board-size and would definitely lose it's appeal if the board were infinite since the King could just run in the opposite direction.) in fact, because Chess is coded explains why it must create space for such weird decodings - the 5th-rank 'en-passent' and the 8th-rank 'promoting' moves of the pawn, for example. as D&G write (paraphrasing): how could a radical particle be created anywhere but a giant superconducter? (or whatever those centrifugal thingys are called)<BR><BR>lastly, let's be very clear: there's nothing wrong with desiring to increase one's territory - Nietzsche's Will to Power demands nothing less of his children (gay neo-barbarians). likewise, D&G's slogan: 'make a rhizome' and 'make a war machine' - grow offshots everywhere, amplify intensity, infect strata and turn them against the State, be all over the fuckin place, deterritorialize and explode. <BR><BR>and yes, there's always the danger of micro-fascisms, of annihilation and all-too-sudden destructions, which is precisely why hyper-active resistance will always be a must - as Foucault said, 'there's always something to do' which means there's always some circle of influence yet to be determined. <BR><BR>we gotta play hard.<BR><BR>:k<BR><BR>--<BR><BR>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:36:49 Shin hee wrote:<BR>>You know this particular passage has me scratching my head and wrinkling my >nose a little... the latter because it smells a little Orientalist and the >former because I have a hunch that really this is a very productive passage >that not only works in the register of analogy but also as a template for >strategization in general--but also engenders more problems than provides >solutions. Case in point: the nature of Go is very tricky. Go requires >defeat of an opponent made possible through sweeping, total, majoritarian >movement across the board, yes? So.... sure, go strikes me as very >molecluar, very much in the spirit of the undifferentiated BwO, but Go also >strikes me as flirting with a totalitarian energy. OK, the state modeled >after monarchical/familial organization (chess) oviously sucks. However, >the state modeled after a mode of deploying pieces across bounded space in >order to territorialize and doing so by completely resisting the >singularity of the piece itself (in order to gain maximum mobility)... >well... <BR>><BR>>This passage also sticks out to me because I think that even within chess >there is a quality of immanence that may go unrecognized but makes an >awfully cute tassle in an otherwise dreary hat... the en passant move that >the pawn can make in the 5th rank strikes me as a nice little gesture >towards traversability. That is, a diagonal movement that happens in a >moment of direct confrontation but ends up in capturing the opponent's >piece precisely because it resists a predictably onward march? It's good >to chew on.<BR><BR><BR>Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Post your free ad now! <a href="
http://ca.personals.yahoo.com/";><b>Yahoo! Canada Personals</b></a><br>
--0-1403623671-1036001343=:14766--
