Rafael Nadal smashed Roger Federer 6-1, 6-3 in the Italian Open finals, improving his record against Federer to 20-10 overall and 14-6 in finals. No one consistently outslugged Babe Ruth in Ruth's prime, no one consistently outgained Jim Brown in Brown's prime, no one consistently outplayed Wayne Gretzky in Gretzky's prime and no one consistently outplayed Michael Jordan in Jordan's prime. Ruth, Brown, Gretzky and Jordan are widely considered to be the greatest players of all-time in their respective sports and--even though there are other valid claimants to the throne in each sport--those players clearly dominated their own eras. Roger Federer has been called the greatest tennis player of all-time, so it is jarring to see him repeatedly not just beaten but often dominated to the point of humiliation by Rafael Nadal. If Karl Malone had outdueled Michael Jordan in the 1997 and 1998 NBA Finals instead of the other way around then Jordan would still be considered great but he would not be the icon that he is now with six titles in six Finals appearances.
Federer's advocates like to point out that a big part of Nadal's head to head advantage stems from his 13-2 record on clay versus Federer but (1) it makes no sense to call Federer the greatest of all-time when one player completely dominates him on a particular surface and (2) Nadal also has a good head to head record against Federer on other surfaces: they are tied 6-6 on hard courts--with Nadal leading 6-2 on outdoor hardcourts--and Nadal also owns a Wimbledon win against Federer, proving that Nadal can beat Federer on Federer's absolute best surface even though Federer is almost completely helpless against Nadal on Nadal's best surface.
If this were just some small sample size fluke--if Nadal owned, say, a 3-0 record against Federer on clay but had never beaten Federer anywhere else or won any other Grand Slam titles--then it could be dismissed as insignificant in the context of Federer's entire career but the sample size is sufficiently large and Nadal's career is very impressive in its own right: Nadal owns a career Grand Slam just like Federer and Nadal has a better Grand Slam event winning percentage (.333 to .309) and a better Grand Slam match winning percentage (.877 to .869). Is Federer more durable than Nadal? Yes, unquestionably. Will Federer finish his career with more Grand Slam titles than Nadal? Probably--Federer leads 17-11 and could conceivably add to his total, making it very challenging for Nadal to catch him even if Nadal does not miss any more Grand Slams due to injury. Federer is tennis' Emmitt Smith; Smith is the NFL's all-time rushing leader but no serious football analyst considers Smith to be the greatest running back of all-time: Smith was great and he was very durable but his per game and per season rushing averages do not match up with Jim Brown's.
The greatest player of all-time discussion in tennis really must be split into at least two parts--Open Era and pre-Open Era--because if Rod Laver had been permitted to play in the Grand Slam tournaments throughout his prime before the Open Era then he likely would have set records that never would have been broken. The equipment, rules and playing surfaces have all changed so much over the years that it may be more difficult to make meaningful cross generational comparisons in tennis than in any other sport.
Setting aside any discussion of Laver and the other pre-Open Era greats, is Federer the greatest player of the Open Era? Is Nadal the greatest player of the Open Era? With all due respect to those two tremendous champions, the correct answer may be "Neither": a strong case can be made that Bjorn Borg is the greatest player of the Open Era. It is hard to pick Federer after he has been so thoroughly dominated for his whole career by his main rival and neither Federer nor Nadal have matched the winning percentages and the simultaneous grass court/clay court dominance that Borg established during his reign.
It is somewhat speculative to compare Borg to Federer and Nadal since Borg never competed against either player, but we have seen Federer and Nadal compete against each other many times--and, while it can be debated exactly where to rank each one on the Open Era list, it is increasingly hard to justify placing Federer ahead of Nadal: we have no video of anyone consistently beating Jim Brown and the only footage of Ruth, Jordan or Gretzky being outdueled comes from the tail end of their respective careers. Federer has been number one in the world as recently as October 2012 and he still maintains a number two or number three ranking depending on the week; Federer's fans trumpet his every tournament win as further "proof" of his greatest of all-time status so, by the same token, every crushing loss to Nadal further proves that said status should never have been granted by the media in the first place.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
What it Means to be the Best
After the New England Patriots lost 28-13 to the Baltimore Ravens in the 2013 AFC Championship,
Kurt Warner sent this text message to New England quarterback Tom
Brady: "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you
win more than anybody else." This quote is cited in a Seth Wickersham
article the 5/13/2013 issue of ESPN the Magazine. Wickersham
described what that brief message meant to Brady: "It touched Brady not
because Warner called him the best. No, it meant a
lot because in a bottom-line profession someone recognized the virtue in
striving, even if it's a consolation prize."
In sports--and in life--it is not always possible to control outcomes, no matter how dedicated, determined and talented that you are. The challenge and the opportunity is to always do your best; a person who can honestly say that he has fully committed his mind, body and soul to excellence is a champion even on the days when the scoreboard says that he has been vanquished.
In sports--and in life--it is not always possible to control outcomes, no matter how dedicated, determined and talented that you are. The challenge and the opportunity is to always do your best; a person who can honestly say that he has fully committed his mind, body and soul to excellence is a champion even on the days when the scoreboard says that he has been vanquished.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Why is Chess Not More Highly Respected in America?
Chess masters are viewed as athletes and even heroes in many countries--the current Armenian champion is featured on billboards and receives a salary from the national government--but, with rare exceptions such as Bobby Fischer and perhaps Paul Morphy, that has not been the case in America. It is both rarer and more difficult to achieve chess mastery than it is to earn a doctoral degree but in America chess masters are not accorded the respect or the financial compensation commensurate with reaching the 99th percentile in their chosen endeavor.
Stuart Rachels became the youngest National Master in American history (a record previously held by Fischer and that has since been broken several times, most recently by Awonder Liang) before earning the International Master title and tying for first place in the 1989 U.S. Championship. Rachels retired from professional chess in 1993 to follow in his father's footsteps by becoming a philosophy professor. Rachels' life experiences and his training as both an elite chess player and a philosopher provide him a unique perspective regarding how chess and chess players are perceived in America. In The Reviled Art, Rachels laments chess' low status in America: "My proudest moment--winning the U.S. Championship--brought me satisfaction but no glory. By then I knew that my victory was not a national news story, but I was disappointed to discover that it was not even considered local news. In Atlanta, where I was then a college student, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution declined to run a story about the tournament, while my college newspaper ran a story on page thirteen, devoting its front page to the minor accomplishments of a Division III college swimmer."
The preface to The Reviled Art is a quote from Rachels' father, James Rachels: "If chess is an art, it is hardly treated as such in the United States. Imagine what it would be like if music were as little known or appreciated. Suppose no self-respecting university would offer credit courses in music, and the National Endowment for the Arts refused to pay for any of it. A few enthusiasts might compose sonatas, and study and admire one another's efforts, but they would largely be ignored. Once in a while a Mozart might capture the public imagination, and like Bobby Fischer get written about in Newsweek. But the general attitude would be that, while this playing with sound might be clever, and a great passion for those who care about it, still in the end it signifies nothing very important."
During the early 1970s, it seemed like Bobby Fischer's dramatic World Championship victory might elevate the status of chess in the United States but Fischer was a tormented genius who did not defend his title and after Fischer disappeared from public view the "Fischer Boom" became a whimper. However, Stuart Rachels does not believe that chess would have become a mainstream activity in the United States even if Fischer had stayed on the scene:
The Fischer-Spassky frenzy was about a Cold War clash, and about the public's interest in Fischer himself; it had little to do with chess. If Bobby had kept playing, it would have been great. Professional chess players might now make a decent living in America. The U.S. Chess Federation might have as many members as the American Contract Bridge League (USCF: 90,000; ACBL: 160,000). But Fischer could not have made chess popular in the United States. There are three reasons for this.
The first, peculiar to the U.S.A., is our country's deeply-engrained anti-intellectualism. In America, chess is regarded as the premier strategy game, but this accolade earns the game little respect...
The second reason is that chess is an anti-social activity--or rather, tournament chess is. Casual games can be social affairs, but serious chess is quiet and solitary. Tournament games typically last for hours, and though you are playing against a human being, you do not speak to him, and you are not working with him--you are trying to beat him. Not many people want to spend hours alone with their own thoughts.
The third reason Fischer couldn't have made chess as popular as golf or tennis is that the game's beauty is invisible to those who haven't labored over a chessboard for untold hours.
Stuart Rachels gives an in depth explanation of both why chess games can be beautiful and why it is difficult for the uninitiated to appreciate this beauty. He begins by noting that when his father decided to reduce his personal library he found it easy to discard his books about bridge but he could not so blithely get rid of his chess books: "Throwing away Fischer's games," James Rachels said, "would be like throwing away Shakespeare's plays." Such a sentiment is readily understood by any chess player but may be incomprehensible to someone who does not play chess: how can moves from a board game be compared to great works of literature?
Stuart Rachels offers this description of chess beauty:
Great chess games are breathtaking works of art. What does their beauty consist in? Some facets of a game's beauty can be grasped only by considering the game as a whole. For example, an entire game can embody the flawless execution of a plan (as when, in a Queen's Gambit Declined, White launches a minority attack on the queenside, creates a weak black pawn on c6, organizes his forces around that pawn, wins it, and displays good endgame technique). Or, the protracted struggle of a long game, with its tensions, its clash of styles, and its shifting fortunes, can have aesthetic merit. Or, a whole game can be satisfying because the victor made no detectable errors; reflecting on the game as a whole, we can see that the victor's performance was unspoiled...
Explanations of beauty, however, ring hollow in chess, much as they do elsewhere. In the end, the beauty of chess is something you grasp visually, if you grasp it at all. The move, the combination, the final position, look beautiful. You see it. Even when a Grandmaster thinks about a beautiful move while he's watching a dull movie, he "sees" the board in his mind...
Chess provides a striking example of how knowledge can influence perception. When a novice and a master look at a position, there is a profound difference in their experience. The master sees the power of the pieces: he immediately knows which squares the bishop attacks; no conscious thought is required. More complicated matters can also be perceptual. A master can immediately perceive that a square is weak, a bishop is bad, a pawn is backward, and a queen is pinned. He can perceive all this in one or two seconds of scanning the board, while the novice has only taken in the fact that chess is being played on the board rather than checkers...
Once, when I was giving a thirty-five-board simul, I noticed at one board that a piece had been moved to a different square while I was concentrating on other games. My opponent immediately apologized and put the piece back, blaming the error on his small child, who was watching. This was not a matter of "memorization"—I do not have a trick memory—the position just didn't make sense with the piece misplaced.
A person does not have to possess Rachels' fine-tuned sense of the board to appreciate chess beauty but it takes a certain amount of knowledge to make sense of a chess game; as Rachels put it, a master may be able to instantly grasp the essence of a position in a glance but in that same glance most people will only be able to determine that the game being played is chess, not checkers. It is not difficult for anyone to understand the beauty and grace of a soaring slam dunk, a majestic home run or a long touchdown pass but the concept of chess beauty cannot be expected to make sense to someone who does not play chess.
After providing many examples of chess beauty and of the way that masters perceive the game differently than amateurs, Rachels concludes:
When art lovers talk about what they "see" in a painting, I usually don't believe them. I usually think they're just being pretentious. If you suspect this of me, please know this: any chess expert can confirm what I've said about chess perception. And there is no issue about determining who the experts are. In chess, the experts are the ones who win. In other artistic areas, experts are harder to discern, and so claims about perception and beauty are harder to verify.
In Mano a Mano Competition is Pure, I expressed a similar sentiment:
I love chess for many reasons--the game is part art, part science, part raw blooded competition--but one of the best things about chess is that your performance can be immediately and objectively quantified: you win, lose or draw and your rating is adjusted accordingly (often within 24 hours thanks to the internet/computers). Facing someone over the chessboard is much like going into a boxing ring--you are battling one on one against your opponent and it does not matter how rich you are, how popular you are or who you know: if you don't bring everything you've got then you will get knocked out...
Unfortunately, the writing business--like the music business--does not have objective ratings. There is no mano a mano competition; people who are completely unqualified to analyze either writing or basketball often determine who "wins" and who "loses."
While chess expertise can be accurately quantified, Rachels believes that chess beauty is too abstract of a concept for most people to grasp:
Most of the fun in chess comes from appreciating the game's beauty. This requires being able to see it. And being able to see it requires time and effort: it takes most people years to develop a competent perception of the board. This is the main reason why chess will never become popular in America--it's too hard. And this is why Fischer could not have been Caissa's Arnold Palmer.
Rachels is probably being a bit too pessimistic here and he later backs off a bit by conceding, "Weaker players can enjoy the game, and it doesn't take years to become weak. Different things are enjoyed at a lower level than at a higher level. For example, a novice might get excited by a simple knight fork, which a stronger player would find routine. But this is enjoyment nonetheless." I know from firsthand experience that in just one evening an attentive and enthusiastic student can go from knowing virtually nothing about chess to being able to appreciate, at least on a rudimentary visual level, the beauty of one of Morphy's most famous games.
Rachels devotes a significant portion of his essay to discussing chess composition. Rachels asserts, "The composed problem is the highest form of art in chess" and he is disappointed that chess problem composers are accorded so little respect even within the chess community itself:
The world of chess compositions is like the chess world writ smaller. Society ignores chess players; chess players ignore composers. Chess players don't like problems for the same reason that greengrocers don't like chess: because it strains the brain. Humans can grasp a lot about chess, but most people don't want to; chess players can grasp a lot about problems, but most aren't interested. The chess composer is a tragic figure, even compared to the chess player. Kasparov and Fischer enjoy fame, and even players who haven't penetrated the public consciousness are renowned in chess circles. Yet the Kasparovs and Fischers of the composing world are largely unknown even to chess players.
Although Rachels wishes that chess artistry in all forms were better appreciated, he rejects attempts to popularize the game by classifying chess as a sport because Rachels believes that physical exertion is an essential aspect of any sport. I disagree with Rachels; sport is not defined purely by the level of physical exertion required but rather by how much skill is utilized: that is why chess can rightly be called a sport but board games that rely on rolling dice or other elements of chance cannot rightly be called sports. Chess is a mind sport, a sport that requires extraordinary concentration, focus and mental/physical stamina; contrary to popular belief, it is very much a young person's game at the highest levels, precisely because of the sustained intense mental, physical and psychological effort that competitive chess requires.
Chess is a unique human endeavor, combining art (beauty), sport (skillful competition) and science (a strong player must know how to identify important patterns, utilize logic and employ proper technique). It is a shame that chess is not more widely appreciated and that it is not utilized as an integral part of the education process; as former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov recently stated, learning chess can provide "a self-confidence that transforms a child's view of his or her potential."
Stuart Rachels became the youngest National Master in American history (a record previously held by Fischer and that has since been broken several times, most recently by Awonder Liang) before earning the International Master title and tying for first place in the 1989 U.S. Championship. Rachels retired from professional chess in 1993 to follow in his father's footsteps by becoming a philosophy professor. Rachels' life experiences and his training as both an elite chess player and a philosopher provide him a unique perspective regarding how chess and chess players are perceived in America. In The Reviled Art, Rachels laments chess' low status in America: "My proudest moment--winning the U.S. Championship--brought me satisfaction but no glory. By then I knew that my victory was not a national news story, but I was disappointed to discover that it was not even considered local news. In Atlanta, where I was then a college student, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution declined to run a story about the tournament, while my college newspaper ran a story on page thirteen, devoting its front page to the minor accomplishments of a Division III college swimmer."
The preface to The Reviled Art is a quote from Rachels' father, James Rachels: "If chess is an art, it is hardly treated as such in the United States. Imagine what it would be like if music were as little known or appreciated. Suppose no self-respecting university would offer credit courses in music, and the National Endowment for the Arts refused to pay for any of it. A few enthusiasts might compose sonatas, and study and admire one another's efforts, but they would largely be ignored. Once in a while a Mozart might capture the public imagination, and like Bobby Fischer get written about in Newsweek. But the general attitude would be that, while this playing with sound might be clever, and a great passion for those who care about it, still in the end it signifies nothing very important."
During the early 1970s, it seemed like Bobby Fischer's dramatic World Championship victory might elevate the status of chess in the United States but Fischer was a tormented genius who did not defend his title and after Fischer disappeared from public view the "Fischer Boom" became a whimper. However, Stuart Rachels does not believe that chess would have become a mainstream activity in the United States even if Fischer had stayed on the scene:
The Fischer-Spassky frenzy was about a Cold War clash, and about the public's interest in Fischer himself; it had little to do with chess. If Bobby had kept playing, it would have been great. Professional chess players might now make a decent living in America. The U.S. Chess Federation might have as many members as the American Contract Bridge League (USCF: 90,000; ACBL: 160,000). But Fischer could not have made chess popular in the United States. There are three reasons for this.
The first, peculiar to the U.S.A., is our country's deeply-engrained anti-intellectualism. In America, chess is regarded as the premier strategy game, but this accolade earns the game little respect...
The second reason is that chess is an anti-social activity--or rather, tournament chess is. Casual games can be social affairs, but serious chess is quiet and solitary. Tournament games typically last for hours, and though you are playing against a human being, you do not speak to him, and you are not working with him--you are trying to beat him. Not many people want to spend hours alone with their own thoughts.
The third reason Fischer couldn't have made chess as popular as golf or tennis is that the game's beauty is invisible to those who haven't labored over a chessboard for untold hours.
Stuart Rachels gives an in depth explanation of both why chess games can be beautiful and why it is difficult for the uninitiated to appreciate this beauty. He begins by noting that when his father decided to reduce his personal library he found it easy to discard his books about bridge but he could not so blithely get rid of his chess books: "Throwing away Fischer's games," James Rachels said, "would be like throwing away Shakespeare's plays." Such a sentiment is readily understood by any chess player but may be incomprehensible to someone who does not play chess: how can moves from a board game be compared to great works of literature?
Stuart Rachels offers this description of chess beauty:
Great chess games are breathtaking works of art. What does their beauty consist in? Some facets of a game's beauty can be grasped only by considering the game as a whole. For example, an entire game can embody the flawless execution of a plan (as when, in a Queen's Gambit Declined, White launches a minority attack on the queenside, creates a weak black pawn on c6, organizes his forces around that pawn, wins it, and displays good endgame technique). Or, the protracted struggle of a long game, with its tensions, its clash of styles, and its shifting fortunes, can have aesthetic merit. Or, a whole game can be satisfying because the victor made no detectable errors; reflecting on the game as a whole, we can see that the victor's performance was unspoiled...
Explanations of beauty, however, ring hollow in chess, much as they do elsewhere. In the end, the beauty of chess is something you grasp visually, if you grasp it at all. The move, the combination, the final position, look beautiful. You see it. Even when a Grandmaster thinks about a beautiful move while he's watching a dull movie, he "sees" the board in his mind...
Chess provides a striking example of how knowledge can influence perception. When a novice and a master look at a position, there is a profound difference in their experience. The master sees the power of the pieces: he immediately knows which squares the bishop attacks; no conscious thought is required. More complicated matters can also be perceptual. A master can immediately perceive that a square is weak, a bishop is bad, a pawn is backward, and a queen is pinned. He can perceive all this in one or two seconds of scanning the board, while the novice has only taken in the fact that chess is being played on the board rather than checkers...
Once, when I was giving a thirty-five-board simul, I noticed at one board that a piece had been moved to a different square while I was concentrating on other games. My opponent immediately apologized and put the piece back, blaming the error on his small child, who was watching. This was not a matter of "memorization"—I do not have a trick memory—the position just didn't make sense with the piece misplaced.
A person does not have to possess Rachels' fine-tuned sense of the board to appreciate chess beauty but it takes a certain amount of knowledge to make sense of a chess game; as Rachels put it, a master may be able to instantly grasp the essence of a position in a glance but in that same glance most people will only be able to determine that the game being played is chess, not checkers. It is not difficult for anyone to understand the beauty and grace of a soaring slam dunk, a majestic home run or a long touchdown pass but the concept of chess beauty cannot be expected to make sense to someone who does not play chess.
After providing many examples of chess beauty and of the way that masters perceive the game differently than amateurs, Rachels concludes:
When art lovers talk about what they "see" in a painting, I usually don't believe them. I usually think they're just being pretentious. If you suspect this of me, please know this: any chess expert can confirm what I've said about chess perception. And there is no issue about determining who the experts are. In chess, the experts are the ones who win. In other artistic areas, experts are harder to discern, and so claims about perception and beauty are harder to verify.
In Mano a Mano Competition is Pure, I expressed a similar sentiment:
I love chess for many reasons--the game is part art, part science, part raw blooded competition--but one of the best things about chess is that your performance can be immediately and objectively quantified: you win, lose or draw and your rating is adjusted accordingly (often within 24 hours thanks to the internet/computers). Facing someone over the chessboard is much like going into a boxing ring--you are battling one on one against your opponent and it does not matter how rich you are, how popular you are or who you know: if you don't bring everything you've got then you will get knocked out...
Unfortunately, the writing business--like the music business--does not have objective ratings. There is no mano a mano competition; people who are completely unqualified to analyze either writing or basketball often determine who "wins" and who "loses."
While chess expertise can be accurately quantified, Rachels believes that chess beauty is too abstract of a concept for most people to grasp:
Most of the fun in chess comes from appreciating the game's beauty. This requires being able to see it. And being able to see it requires time and effort: it takes most people years to develop a competent perception of the board. This is the main reason why chess will never become popular in America--it's too hard. And this is why Fischer could not have been Caissa's Arnold Palmer.
Rachels is probably being a bit too pessimistic here and he later backs off a bit by conceding, "Weaker players can enjoy the game, and it doesn't take years to become weak. Different things are enjoyed at a lower level than at a higher level. For example, a novice might get excited by a simple knight fork, which a stronger player would find routine. But this is enjoyment nonetheless." I know from firsthand experience that in just one evening an attentive and enthusiastic student can go from knowing virtually nothing about chess to being able to appreciate, at least on a rudimentary visual level, the beauty of one of Morphy's most famous games.
Rachels devotes a significant portion of his essay to discussing chess composition. Rachels asserts, "The composed problem is the highest form of art in chess" and he is disappointed that chess problem composers are accorded so little respect even within the chess community itself:
The world of chess compositions is like the chess world writ smaller. Society ignores chess players; chess players ignore composers. Chess players don't like problems for the same reason that greengrocers don't like chess: because it strains the brain. Humans can grasp a lot about chess, but most people don't want to; chess players can grasp a lot about problems, but most aren't interested. The chess composer is a tragic figure, even compared to the chess player. Kasparov and Fischer enjoy fame, and even players who haven't penetrated the public consciousness are renowned in chess circles. Yet the Kasparovs and Fischers of the composing world are largely unknown even to chess players.
Although Rachels wishes that chess artistry in all forms were better appreciated, he rejects attempts to popularize the game by classifying chess as a sport because Rachels believes that physical exertion is an essential aspect of any sport. I disagree with Rachels; sport is not defined purely by the level of physical exertion required but rather by how much skill is utilized: that is why chess can rightly be called a sport but board games that rely on rolling dice or other elements of chance cannot rightly be called sports. Chess is a mind sport, a sport that requires extraordinary concentration, focus and mental/physical stamina; contrary to popular belief, it is very much a young person's game at the highest levels, precisely because of the sustained intense mental, physical and psychological effort that competitive chess requires.
Chess is a unique human endeavor, combining art (beauty), sport (skillful competition) and science (a strong player must know how to identify important patterns, utilize logic and employ proper technique). It is a shame that chess is not more widely appreciated and that it is not utilized as an integral part of the education process; as former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov recently stated, learning chess can provide "a self-confidence that transforms a child's view of his or her potential."
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Education is the Best Weapon Against Hatred and Prejudice
I just saw the movie "42" today. Jackie Robinson's life story is inspirational because of his personal courage and integrity but it is also depressing because it reveals the depths of ignorance, prejudice and hatred that were a common part of public life not too long ago and that still simmer just beneath the surface. What is the cure for the evil that seems to be such an essential part of human nature?
Education is the best hope for humanity's survival--and chess can be an essential part of that educational process. Former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov recently met Ugandan junior chess champion Phiona Mutesi at the "Women in the World Summit." Mutesi told Kasparov that he is an inspiration but Kasparov correctly noted that Mutesi's story is not only inspirational but sends a powerful message about how we can transform the world by using chess as an educational catalyst.
Kasparov expanded upon that theme in an article titled How Chess Saves Lives. Kasparov's wise words should be read in their entirety but here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:
Phiona came from the slums of Katwe in the Ugandan capital of Kampala, growing up in deprivation and fear that few members of our New York audience could imagine. Her discovery of Katende’s local chess club became a miracle for Phiona, showing her that she could achieve intellectually. More important than that her chess talent has allowed her to travel the world, she now plans to be a doctor! This is the first and most powerful gift chess can provide, a self-confidence that transforms a child’s view of his or her potential. Very few kids can truly expect to turn success at football or other physical sports into an education or career. This is also true for chess, but the knowledge that you can compete, succeed, and enjoy yourself on an intellectual level applies to everything you undertake in life...
When you look around the world’s trouble spots, you see that when kids don’t have access to education, many of those who are being saved by Western aid are destined for lives of misery and violence. Do not misunderstand me. This is of course not an argument against providing life-saving drugs or a denunciation of the brilliant and caring people and programs that provide them. But do not turn away as soon as the babies are born and fed. Do not turn away at all. Look at the young boys enslaved by drug gangs and armies of every stripe, at the unemployed young men who find purpose and profit in victimizing their neighbors, at the girls and women who are inevitably the greatest victims of violence. The only medicine that can cure these plagues is safe and equal access to a classroom.
The best proof of the truth of this may come from the other side, from the brutal groups that burn down schools and shoot schoolgirls. It’s rare to hear about coordinated attacks on aid that brings medicine and food. These things pose little threat to the Taliban, or to the regional warlords, or to the corrupt politicians who steal funds that could go to help their people. Religious fanatics, mercenaries, and armies all need healthy recruits, after all. What these thugs cannot abide is the flourishing of education—with the noteworthy exception of militant religious teaching that closes minds instead of opening them. They despise the possibility of an educated population, knowing it would mean the end of their kind in a generation. So the Taliban did not just close the schools where 15-year-old Malala Yousafzai lived in Swat, Pakistan, they destroyed them. They did not just tell Malala not to go to school, they shot her.
Education is the best hope for humanity's survival--and chess can be an essential part of that educational process. Former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov recently met Ugandan junior chess champion Phiona Mutesi at the "Women in the World Summit." Mutesi told Kasparov that he is an inspiration but Kasparov correctly noted that Mutesi's story is not only inspirational but sends a powerful message about how we can transform the world by using chess as an educational catalyst.
Kasparov expanded upon that theme in an article titled How Chess Saves Lives. Kasparov's wise words should be read in their entirety but here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:
Phiona came from the slums of Katwe in the Ugandan capital of Kampala, growing up in deprivation and fear that few members of our New York audience could imagine. Her discovery of Katende’s local chess club became a miracle for Phiona, showing her that she could achieve intellectually. More important than that her chess talent has allowed her to travel the world, she now plans to be a doctor! This is the first and most powerful gift chess can provide, a self-confidence that transforms a child’s view of his or her potential. Very few kids can truly expect to turn success at football or other physical sports into an education or career. This is also true for chess, but the knowledge that you can compete, succeed, and enjoy yourself on an intellectual level applies to everything you undertake in life...
When you look around the world’s trouble spots, you see that when kids don’t have access to education, many of those who are being saved by Western aid are destined for lives of misery and violence. Do not misunderstand me. This is of course not an argument against providing life-saving drugs or a denunciation of the brilliant and caring people and programs that provide them. But do not turn away as soon as the babies are born and fed. Do not turn away at all. Look at the young boys enslaved by drug gangs and armies of every stripe, at the unemployed young men who find purpose and profit in victimizing their neighbors, at the girls and women who are inevitably the greatest victims of violence. The only medicine that can cure these plagues is safe and equal access to a classroom.
The best proof of the truth of this may come from the other side, from the brutal groups that burn down schools and shoot schoolgirls. It’s rare to hear about coordinated attacks on aid that brings medicine and food. These things pose little threat to the Taliban, or to the regional warlords, or to the corrupt politicians who steal funds that could go to help their people. Religious fanatics, mercenaries, and armies all need healthy recruits, after all. What these thugs cannot abide is the flourishing of education—with the noteworthy exception of militant religious teaching that closes minds instead of opening them. They despise the possibility of an educated population, knowing it would mean the end of their kind in a generation. So the Taliban did not just close the schools where 15-year-old Malala Yousafzai lived in Swat, Pakistan, they destroyed them. They did not just tell Malala not to go to school, they shot her.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Robert Byrne, 1928-2013: Grandmaster, Journalist and Philosophy Professor
Robert Byrne, the 1972 U.S. Chess Champion who wrote the New York Times' chess column from 1972-2006, passed away on April 12. Byrne earned the Grandmaster title in 1964 after finishing third in the Candidates Tournament. He represented the United States in nine Chess Olympiads from 1952-76, capturing seven medals--including a team gold medal in the 1976 Haifa Olympiad while playing on the first board. Byrne defeated Bobby Fischer in their individual encounter in the 1965 U.S. Championship but Fischer rallied to win the event; Fischer won each of the eight U.S. Championships that he entered but because he disagreed with the format of the tournament he stopped participating, which is why Byrne reigned as U.S. Champion in 1972 while Fischer simultaneously reigned as the World Chess Champion.
Byrne worked full-time for many years as a philosophy professor at Indiana University and thus he was a part-time player during much of his chess career, which makes his chess successes all the more remarkable.
In this video, International Master Andrew Martin annotates Byrne's 1971 win against Soviet International Master Yuri Balashov, who later became a Grandmaster:
Byrne's younger brother Donald, who passed away in 1976, was an English professor at Penn State and an International Master, though in the chess world he is most famous for being on the losing end of 13 year old Fischer's brilliant Queen sacrifice in the Game of the Century.
Byrne worked full-time for many years as a philosophy professor at Indiana University and thus he was a part-time player during much of his chess career, which makes his chess successes all the more remarkable.
In this video, International Master Andrew Martin annotates Byrne's 1971 win against Soviet International Master Yuri Balashov, who later became a Grandmaster:
Byrne's younger brother Donald, who passed away in 1976, was an English professor at Penn State and an International Master, though in the chess world he is most famous for being on the losing end of 13 year old Fischer's brilliant Queen sacrifice in the Game of the Century.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
A Wonderful Accomplishment: Wisconsin Prodigy Becomes Youngest USCF National Master
Nine year old Awonder Liang just became the youngest National Master in U.S. history, winning his first two games in the Midwest Open Team Chess Festival (MOTCF) to push his U.S. Chess Federation rating to 2206. The average USCF rating used to be in the 1500 range but the recent proliferation of scholastic tournaments that created a large pool of young players who have ratings below 1000 reduced the average rating to less than 1100; even though the average rating has shifted downward, one truth has remained constant: only about one percent of U.S. tournament players ever reach the 2200 level and receive the treasured white and blue National Master certificate.
This is just the latest in a series of impressive records set by Liang. In April 2011, he became the youngest Expert in U.S. history (eight years, seven days old). Players in the Expert class, signified by a rating between 2000 and 2199, are ranked on approximately the 95th to 98th percentiles among USCF members but even though this category is elite from a statistical standpoint it does not carry the cachet in the chess community that National Master does. Liang is also the youngest player to defeat an International Master in a rated game and the youngest player to defeat a Grandmaster in a rated game.
Awonder's brother, Adream, was the 23rd highest rated 11 year old player on the USCF's February 2013 rating list; after gaining 42 points in MOTCF he is within 82 points of becoming an Expert and within 282 points of becoming a National Master.
Bobby Fischer earned the USCF National Master title as a 14 year old in 1957 after increasing his rating by more than 500 points in one year, a phenomenal improvement that vaulted him from being just a very talented young player to setting him on the path to become arguably the greatest player of all time. Fischer later said of this period, "I just got good"; a more precise explanation is that Fischer's rating progress reflected a potent combination of natural talent honed by tremendous determination and a tireless work ethic. In 1958, Fischer qualified for the Candidates matches (the final stage to determine the challenger for the World Chess Championship) and thus became the youngest Grandmaster ever. It is not fair or meaningful to compare Fischer's accomplishments to the accomplishments of the players who came after him; Fischer reached National Master and Grandmaster status without the benefit of training with strong computer engines and at a time when there were far fewer National Masters and Grandmasters than there are now. Fischer was one of the very top players in the U.S. at 14 and he was a world class competitor at 15, while today's record setting National Masters and Grandmasters have not distanced themselves from their contemporaries to nearly the same extent. Fischer's record for being the youngest Grandmaster stood until 1991, when computers had just begun to make their impact felt in chess training. Since 1991, more than 30 players have become Grandmasters before reaching the age of 16, an accomplishment that is still significant but that no longer means as much as it did when Fischer battled for the World Championship as a teenager.
Fischer's record as the youngest USCF National Master stood until 1981, when it was broken by 11 year old Stuart Rachels (Rachels later earned the International Master title and was co-U.S. Champion in 1989-90 before retiring from tournament chess to become a philosophy professor). Rachels held the record until 1994, when Jordy Mont-Reynaud became a National Master as a 10 year old. Vinay Bhat soon surpassed Mont-Reynaud and Bhat held the record until 1997, when Hikaru Nakamura--who is now one of the top 10 players in the world--became a National Master less than three months after his 10th birthday. Nicholas Nip officially broke Nakamura's record in 2008 but there is some controversy about how Nip gained his rating points and it is highly unusual that Nip has not played a single rated game since becoming a National Master. In December 2010, Samuel Sevian became a National Master less than one month before his 10th birthday; unlike Nip, Sevian continued to play tournament chess and he later surpassed the 2400 rating level, becoming a USCF Senior Master (the highest title awarded by the USCF). Sevian's current USCF rating is 2471.
Awonder Liang did not play the final three rounds of MOTCF, ensuring that his rating would not fall below 2200. In an individual tournament a player would be expected to complete all of the regularly scheduled rounds unless he became ill (or was out of contention for a prize) but in a team event it is common for a team to rotate five players among the four boards either for matchup purposes or just to keep the players fresh. Regardless of why Liang only played two rounds, his chess career profile does not resemble Nip's at all; Liang has generally played in strong open tournaments where he predominantly faced Masters and Experts: over the past 12 months, 86 of his 121 opponents have been rated at least 2000, which means he has been facing (and scoring well against) the top five percent of U.S. players.
I have personally witnessed some of Liang's history-making career. We both participated in MOTCF 2013, the 2012 Indianapolis Open, the 2012 Chicago Open and the 2011 FIDE Americas Championship in Chicago but I have only had the chance to play him once; we squared off on board two in the final round of the 2013 Cardinal Open: a victory would have enabled me to tie for first place in the U2100 section but Liang--who was a half point behind me entering the round--prevailed and finished in a four way tie for second place. If Liang had not beaten me in that game then he would still be a few points shy of 2200, so it literally can be said that he would not yet be a National Master without me! Here is that game, lightly annotated; Liang slowly but steadily outplayed me, eventually winning because of the strength of his connected passed pawns:
David Friedman (2050) - Awonder Liang (2094) [B87]
Cardinal Open (U2100 Section) 1/27/13 Round 5
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. O-O Be7 9. Qf3 Qc7 10. Qg3 O-O 11. Bh6 Ne8 12. Rad1 Bd7 13. f4 Nc6 14. Nxc6 Bxc6 (My opponent spent almost 30 minutes thinking about which way to recapture. I thought that I stood well here--not just because he spent so much time on this move but also because my K-side attack looked strong to me.) 15. f5 (A. Sokolov played the text against Gelfand in the 1989 USSR Chmp [1-0, 64 moves]) 15... Kh8 16. Be3 b4 17. Ne2!? (17. Na4 is the correct move, as Sokolov played against Gelfand. White threatens to invade on b6 and also to take on e6.) 17... e5 (I underestimated this move; I did not think that Black could afford to create such a hole on d5 but the point is that White cannot exploit this hole and White's N is suddenly a very clumsy piece.) 18. c3 (This maintains material equality but enables Black to create two powerful connected passed pawns in the center. 18. Qf3 Nf6 19. Ng3 Qb7 did not appeal to me during the game but White should be able to hold after 20. Bd5 Bxd5 21. exd5 Rac8 22. Rd2) 18... Nf6 19. Bd5? (cxb4 offers more resistance than the text.) 19...Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Bxe4 21. cxb4 Qb7 22. a3 Bc6 23.Rd2 f6 24. Qg4 Rg8 25. Ng3 d5 26. Bc5 Bxc5+ 27. bxc5 d4 28. Re1 Qb5 29. Ne4? (29. Rc1 is a better try but it will be very difficult for White to maintain an effective blockade.) 29...Bxe4 (Black will soon have an extra pawn in addition to owning connected passers. The game is over.) 30. Qxe4 Qxc5 31. Rd3 Rac8 32. Rh3 Rgd8 33. Qh4?? (A blunder in a lost position. White must blockade the d pawn.) d3+ 34. Kf1 h6 35. Qg4 d2 36. Rd1 Rd4 37. Qe2 Qd5 38. Rf3 Rc1 39. Rc3 Rf4+ 40. Kg1 Qd4+ 41. Kh1 Rxd1+ 42. Qxd1 Rf1+ 0-1
While the 2013 MOTCF event will always be most remembered for Liang's record, the first place team also has several notable young players who have already made names for themselves in the chess world. Walker Griggs, a 17 year old who earned the National Master title at age 15, led the CCLian Defense team (named for the Columbus Chess Lessons organization) to the MOTCF championship with four match points in five rounds; four teams finished a half point behind (including my squad, Friedman's Fanatics). Griggs' teammates are Maggie Feng, Luke Xie and Vikran Raman. Feng, an Expert, won the silver medal in the 2012 Pan-American Youth Chess Championship in the girls under 12 division; Xie, who is also an Expert, was the fifth highest rated 10 year old player on the USCF's February 2013 rating list.
The Dayton Chess Club hosted MOTCF; the DCC has existed since 1959 and is thriving thanks to the leadership of club owners Riley and Sharon Driver. DCC Vice President Chris Bechtold did a great job promoting MOTCF and helping put together several of the teams. Michael Schauer deserves credit not only for serving as MOTCF's Tournament Director but also for running the club's weekly Quick Chess events that attract players from as far south as Cincinnati and as far west as Indiana.
This is just the latest in a series of impressive records set by Liang. In April 2011, he became the youngest Expert in U.S. history (eight years, seven days old). Players in the Expert class, signified by a rating between 2000 and 2199, are ranked on approximately the 95th to 98th percentiles among USCF members but even though this category is elite from a statistical standpoint it does not carry the cachet in the chess community that National Master does. Liang is also the youngest player to defeat an International Master in a rated game and the youngest player to defeat a Grandmaster in a rated game.
Awonder's brother, Adream, was the 23rd highest rated 11 year old player on the USCF's February 2013 rating list; after gaining 42 points in MOTCF he is within 82 points of becoming an Expert and within 282 points of becoming a National Master.
Bobby Fischer earned the USCF National Master title as a 14 year old in 1957 after increasing his rating by more than 500 points in one year, a phenomenal improvement that vaulted him from being just a very talented young player to setting him on the path to become arguably the greatest player of all time. Fischer later said of this period, "I just got good"; a more precise explanation is that Fischer's rating progress reflected a potent combination of natural talent honed by tremendous determination and a tireless work ethic. In 1958, Fischer qualified for the Candidates matches (the final stage to determine the challenger for the World Chess Championship) and thus became the youngest Grandmaster ever. It is not fair or meaningful to compare Fischer's accomplishments to the accomplishments of the players who came after him; Fischer reached National Master and Grandmaster status without the benefit of training with strong computer engines and at a time when there were far fewer National Masters and Grandmasters than there are now. Fischer was one of the very top players in the U.S. at 14 and he was a world class competitor at 15, while today's record setting National Masters and Grandmasters have not distanced themselves from their contemporaries to nearly the same extent. Fischer's record for being the youngest Grandmaster stood until 1991, when computers had just begun to make their impact felt in chess training. Since 1991, more than 30 players have become Grandmasters before reaching the age of 16, an accomplishment that is still significant but that no longer means as much as it did when Fischer battled for the World Championship as a teenager.
Fischer's record as the youngest USCF National Master stood until 1981, when it was broken by 11 year old Stuart Rachels (Rachels later earned the International Master title and was co-U.S. Champion in 1989-90 before retiring from tournament chess to become a philosophy professor). Rachels held the record until 1994, when Jordy Mont-Reynaud became a National Master as a 10 year old. Vinay Bhat soon surpassed Mont-Reynaud and Bhat held the record until 1997, when Hikaru Nakamura--who is now one of the top 10 players in the world--became a National Master less than three months after his 10th birthday. Nicholas Nip officially broke Nakamura's record in 2008 but there is some controversy about how Nip gained his rating points and it is highly unusual that Nip has not played a single rated game since becoming a National Master. In December 2010, Samuel Sevian became a National Master less than one month before his 10th birthday; unlike Nip, Sevian continued to play tournament chess and he later surpassed the 2400 rating level, becoming a USCF Senior Master (the highest title awarded by the USCF). Sevian's current USCF rating is 2471.
Awonder Liang did not play the final three rounds of MOTCF, ensuring that his rating would not fall below 2200. In an individual tournament a player would be expected to complete all of the regularly scheduled rounds unless he became ill (or was out of contention for a prize) but in a team event it is common for a team to rotate five players among the four boards either for matchup purposes or just to keep the players fresh. Regardless of why Liang only played two rounds, his chess career profile does not resemble Nip's at all; Liang has generally played in strong open tournaments where he predominantly faced Masters and Experts: over the past 12 months, 86 of his 121 opponents have been rated at least 2000, which means he has been facing (and scoring well against) the top five percent of U.S. players.
I have personally witnessed some of Liang's history-making career. We both participated in MOTCF 2013, the 2012 Indianapolis Open, the 2012 Chicago Open and the 2011 FIDE Americas Championship in Chicago but I have only had the chance to play him once; we squared off on board two in the final round of the 2013 Cardinal Open: a victory would have enabled me to tie for first place in the U2100 section but Liang--who was a half point behind me entering the round--prevailed and finished in a four way tie for second place. If Liang had not beaten me in that game then he would still be a few points shy of 2200, so it literally can be said that he would not yet be a National Master without me! Here is that game, lightly annotated; Liang slowly but steadily outplayed me, eventually winning because of the strength of his connected passed pawns:
David Friedman (2050) - Awonder Liang (2094) [B87]
Cardinal Open (U2100 Section) 1/27/13 Round 5
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. O-O Be7 9. Qf3 Qc7 10. Qg3 O-O 11. Bh6 Ne8 12. Rad1 Bd7 13. f4 Nc6 14. Nxc6 Bxc6 (My opponent spent almost 30 minutes thinking about which way to recapture. I thought that I stood well here--not just because he spent so much time on this move but also because my K-side attack looked strong to me.) 15. f5 (A. Sokolov played the text against Gelfand in the 1989 USSR Chmp [1-0, 64 moves]) 15... Kh8 16. Be3 b4 17. Ne2!? (17. Na4 is the correct move, as Sokolov played against Gelfand. White threatens to invade on b6 and also to take on e6.) 17... e5 (I underestimated this move; I did not think that Black could afford to create such a hole on d5 but the point is that White cannot exploit this hole and White's N is suddenly a very clumsy piece.) 18. c3 (This maintains material equality but enables Black to create two powerful connected passed pawns in the center. 18. Qf3 Nf6 19. Ng3 Qb7 did not appeal to me during the game but White should be able to hold after 20. Bd5 Bxd5 21. exd5 Rac8 22. Rd2) 18... Nf6 19. Bd5? (cxb4 offers more resistance than the text.) 19...Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Bxe4 21. cxb4 Qb7 22. a3 Bc6 23.Rd2 f6 24. Qg4 Rg8 25. Ng3 d5 26. Bc5 Bxc5+ 27. bxc5 d4 28. Re1 Qb5 29. Ne4? (29. Rc1 is a better try but it will be very difficult for White to maintain an effective blockade.) 29...Bxe4 (Black will soon have an extra pawn in addition to owning connected passers. The game is over.) 30. Qxe4 Qxc5 31. Rd3 Rac8 32. Rh3 Rgd8 33. Qh4?? (A blunder in a lost position. White must blockade the d pawn.) d3+ 34. Kf1 h6 35. Qg4 d2 36. Rd1 Rd4 37. Qe2 Qd5 38. Rf3 Rc1 39. Rc3 Rf4+ 40. Kg1 Qd4+ 41. Kh1 Rxd1+ 42. Qxd1 Rf1+ 0-1
While the 2013 MOTCF event will always be most remembered for Liang's record, the first place team also has several notable young players who have already made names for themselves in the chess world. Walker Griggs, a 17 year old who earned the National Master title at age 15, led the CCLian Defense team (named for the Columbus Chess Lessons organization) to the MOTCF championship with four match points in five rounds; four teams finished a half point behind (including my squad, Friedman's Fanatics). Griggs' teammates are Maggie Feng, Luke Xie and Vikran Raman. Feng, an Expert, won the silver medal in the 2012 Pan-American Youth Chess Championship in the girls under 12 division; Xie, who is also an Expert, was the fifth highest rated 10 year old player on the USCF's February 2013 rating list.
The Dayton Chess Club hosted MOTCF; the DCC has existed since 1959 and is thriving thanks to the leadership of club owners Riley and Sharon Driver. DCC Vice President Chris Bechtold did a great job promoting MOTCF and helping put together several of the teams. Michael Schauer deserves credit not only for serving as MOTCF's Tournament Director but also for running the club's weekly Quick Chess events that attract players from as far south as Cincinnati and as far west as Indiana.
Friday, March 15, 2013
The Wit and Wisdom of Casey Stengel
Casey Stengel had a solid 14 year playing career, posting a .284 batting average, leading the National League in on base percentage in 1914 and winning two World Series titles (he did not participate in the Giants' 1921 World Series victory but he hit better than .400 in both their 1922 World Series win and their 1923 World Series loss)--but he made his name as a manager and as a quipster. Stengel led the Yankees to 10 AL pennants and seven World Series titles in a 12 season stretch from 1949-60. Stengel was inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1966, nine years before he passed away at the age of 85.
Here is a sampling of the wit and wisdom of "The Old Professor":
"Being with a woman all night never hurt no professional baseball player. It's staying up all night looking for a woman that does him in."
"Don't cut my throat, I may want to do that later myself."
"Don't drink in the hotel bar, that's where I do my drinking."
"Been in this game one-hundred years, but I see new ways to lose 'em I never knew existed before."
"Managing is getting paid for home runs someone else hits."
"They say Yogi Berra is funny. Well, he has a lovely wife and family, a beautiful home, money in the bank and he plays golf with millionaires. What's funny about that?"
"You can't go out to the mound, hobbling and take a pitcher out with a cane."
"They examined all my organs. Some of them are quite remarkable and others are not so good. A lot of museums are bidding for them." (comment made after being hospitalized for two weeks)
"You have to go broke three times to learn how to make a living."
"I broke in with four hits and the writers promptly declared they had seen the new Ty Cobb. It took me only a few days to correct that impression."
"All right, everybody line up alphabetically according to your height."
"You got to get twenty-seven outs to win."
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided."
"Mister, that boy couldn't hit the ground if he fell out of an airplane."
"I couldn't have done it without my players." (comment made after his Yankees won the 1958 World Series)
"They told me my services were no longer desired because they wanted to put in a youth program as an advance way of keeping the club going. I'll never make the mistake of being seventy again."
"My health is good enough above the shoulders."
"The team has come along slow but fast."
"Well, that's baseball. Rags to riches one day and riches to rags the next. But I've been in it 36 years and I'm used to it."
"Good pitching will always stop good hitting and vice-versa."
"The trick is growing up without growing old."
"The Yankees don't pay me to win every day, just two out of three."
"You have to have a catcher because if you don't you're likely to have a lot of passed balls."
"When you are younger you get blamed for crimes you never committed and when you're older you begin to get credit for virtues you never possessed. It evens itself out."
"Now there's three things that can happen in a ball game: you can win, you can lose, or it can rain."
"You can't get into the Hall of Fame unless you limp."
"They got a lot of kids now whose uniforms are so tight, especially the pants, that they cannot bend over to pick up ground balls. And they don't want to bend over in television games because in that way there is no way their face can get on the camera."
"Son, we'd like to keep you around this season but we're going to try and win a pennant."
"The trouble with women umpires is that I couldn't argue with one. I'd put my arms around her and give her a little kiss."
"Johnny Sain don't say much, but that don't matter much, because when you're out there on the mound, you got nobody to talk to."
"Sure I played, did you think I was born at the age of 70 sitting in a dugout trying to manage guys like you?"
"The Mets are gonna be amazing."
"I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks in batting practice."
"I was not successful as a ball player, as it was a game of skill."
"If we're going to win the pennant, we've got to start thinking we're not as good as we think we are."
"If you're so smart, let's see you get out of the Army."
"I would not admire hitting against Ryne Duren, because if he ever hit you in the head you might be in the past tense."
"I don't like them fellas who drive in two runs and let in three."
"They say some of my stars drink whiskey. But I have found that the ones who drink milkshakes don't win many ball games."
"I don't know if he throws a spitball but he sure spits on the ball."
"Lefthanders have more enthusiasm for life. They sleep on the wrong side of the bed and their head gets more stagnant on that side."
"It's wonderful to meet so many friends that I didn't used to like."
"The way our luck has been lately, our fellas have been getting hurt on their days off."
"If you're playing baseball and thinking about managing, you're crazy. You'd be better off thinking about being an owner."
"Most ball games are lost, not won."
"We are in such a slump that even the ones that are drinkin' aren't hittin'."
"I feel greatly honored to have a ballpark named after me, especially since I've been thrown out of so many."
"I got players with bad watches--they can't tell midnight from noon."
"You look up and down the bench and you have to say to yourself, 'Can't anybody here play this game?' There comes a time in every man's life and I've had plenty of them."
"All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame him, it will not change you. The only thing blame does is to keep the focus off you when you are looking for external reasons to explain your unhappiness or frustration. You may succeed in making another feel guilty about something by blaming him, but you won't succeed in changing whatever it is about you that is making you unhappy."
Here is a sampling of the wit and wisdom of "The Old Professor":
"Being with a woman all night never hurt no professional baseball player. It's staying up all night looking for a woman that does him in."
"Don't cut my throat, I may want to do that later myself."
"Don't drink in the hotel bar, that's where I do my drinking."
"Been in this game one-hundred years, but I see new ways to lose 'em I never knew existed before."
"Managing is getting paid for home runs someone else hits."
"They say Yogi Berra is funny. Well, he has a lovely wife and family, a beautiful home, money in the bank and he plays golf with millionaires. What's funny about that?"
"You can't go out to the mound, hobbling and take a pitcher out with a cane."
"They examined all my organs. Some of them are quite remarkable and others are not so good. A lot of museums are bidding for them." (comment made after being hospitalized for two weeks)
"You have to go broke three times to learn how to make a living."
"I broke in with four hits and the writers promptly declared they had seen the new Ty Cobb. It took me only a few days to correct that impression."
"All right, everybody line up alphabetically according to your height."
"You got to get twenty-seven outs to win."
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided."
"Mister, that boy couldn't hit the ground if he fell out of an airplane."
"I couldn't have done it without my players." (comment made after his Yankees won the 1958 World Series)
"They told me my services were no longer desired because they wanted to put in a youth program as an advance way of keeping the club going. I'll never make the mistake of being seventy again."
"My health is good enough above the shoulders."
"The team has come along slow but fast."
"Well, that's baseball. Rags to riches one day and riches to rags the next. But I've been in it 36 years and I'm used to it."
"Good pitching will always stop good hitting and vice-versa."
"The trick is growing up without growing old."
"The Yankees don't pay me to win every day, just two out of three."
"You have to have a catcher because if you don't you're likely to have a lot of passed balls."
"When you are younger you get blamed for crimes you never committed and when you're older you begin to get credit for virtues you never possessed. It evens itself out."
"Now there's three things that can happen in a ball game: you can win, you can lose, or it can rain."
"You can't get into the Hall of Fame unless you limp."
"They got a lot of kids now whose uniforms are so tight, especially the pants, that they cannot bend over to pick up ground balls. And they don't want to bend over in television games because in that way there is no way their face can get on the camera."
"Son, we'd like to keep you around this season but we're going to try and win a pennant."
"The trouble with women umpires is that I couldn't argue with one. I'd put my arms around her and give her a little kiss."
"Johnny Sain don't say much, but that don't matter much, because when you're out there on the mound, you got nobody to talk to."
"Sure I played, did you think I was born at the age of 70 sitting in a dugout trying to manage guys like you?"
"The Mets are gonna be amazing."
"I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks in batting practice."
"I was not successful as a ball player, as it was a game of skill."
"If we're going to win the pennant, we've got to start thinking we're not as good as we think we are."
"If you're so smart, let's see you get out of the Army."
"I would not admire hitting against Ryne Duren, because if he ever hit you in the head you might be in the past tense."
"I don't like them fellas who drive in two runs and let in three."
"They say some of my stars drink whiskey. But I have found that the ones who drink milkshakes don't win many ball games."
"I don't know if he throws a spitball but he sure spits on the ball."
"Lefthanders have more enthusiasm for life. They sleep on the wrong side of the bed and their head gets more stagnant on that side."
"It's wonderful to meet so many friends that I didn't used to like."
"The way our luck has been lately, our fellas have been getting hurt on their days off."
"If you're playing baseball and thinking about managing, you're crazy. You'd be better off thinking about being an owner."
"Most ball games are lost, not won."
"We are in such a slump that even the ones that are drinkin' aren't hittin'."
"I feel greatly honored to have a ballpark named after me, especially since I've been thrown out of so many."
"I got players with bad watches--they can't tell midnight from noon."
"You look up and down the bench and you have to say to yourself, 'Can't anybody here play this game?' There comes a time in every man's life and I've had plenty of them."
"All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame him, it will not change you. The only thing blame does is to keep the focus off you when you are looking for external reasons to explain your unhappiness or frustration. You may succeed in making another feel guilty about something by blaming him, but you won't succeed in changing whatever it is about you that is making you unhappy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
