In the past week or so, we have learned that there is no consensus among NFL quarterbacks concerning the ideal amount of air in a football. Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers--arguably the best quarterback in the game today--prefers that his footballs are "overinflated," while other quarterbacks prefer that the footballs are not inflated past the NFL's prescribed air pressure range. The New England Patriots are being accused of deriving some supposedly great advantage by allegedly deliberately underinflating the footballs that their offense used during the first half of New England's 45-7 victory against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. The NFL is investigating the matter and all that can be confirmed at this point is that New England's 12 footballs were properly inflated before the game, that 11 of those footballs were deemed to be underinflated by halftime and that the footballs New England's offense used in the second half of the game were properly inflated at halftime and after the game. New England led 17-7 at halftime before blowing the game open in the second half and Tom Brady's worst pass of the game was an underthrown attempt late in the first half that was intercepted by the Colts' D'Qwell Jackson.
According to an Indianapolis writer who perhaps thinks that this is his chance at snagging a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, Jackson immediately detected that something was wrong with the football and Jackson submitted the football to Indianapolis' trainer for further investigation. The problem is that this is not true. Shockingly, a member of the mainstream media wrote something that is false (forgive the sarcasm but the mainstream media is completely out of control and if writers cannot even get their stories straight about footballs then why should we trust what they say about matters of global importance?). Jackson emphatically states that he noticed nothing wrong with the ball that he intercepted. Jackson kept that ball because he wanted a souvenir of his first postseason interception. He could not tell the difference between that football and any other football. Ironically, thanks to this media driven "scandal," Jackson does not even have possession of his souvenir, because the NFL is keeping it as some form of evidence.
It is bizarre to believe that the Patriots would tamper with footballs on game day after the footballs have been inspected and fully realizing that officials and opposing players are going to handle those footballs. Every time the Patriots see the Colts, the Patriots beat the Colts like the Colts stole something and the Patriots generally accomplish this by running the ball down the throats of the soft Colts defense. So how would underinflating the footballs even fit in with New England's game plan?
I have a theory about this. I think that the Colts knew that they were going to lose and that they sent an undercover operative to New England's sideline to tamper with the footballs. That tampering resulted in the Brady interception that helped to keep the score reasonably close at halftime and the subsequent "scandal" has diverted focus from how poorly the Colts prepared for, coached and played this game. Of course, I have no proof whatsoever to support this theory but why should that stop me from writing about it? Lack of proof does not stop anyone else from coming up with asinine theories and then lying about the facts in order to bolster those theories. I demand an NFL investigation into the Colts' tampering with New England's footballs!
I don't believe a word that I wrote in the last paragraph. The point is that it is easy to make stuff up and create a tempest in a teapot. Let's try to apply Occam's Razor here. Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories and looking for underinflated footballs under grassy knolls, wouldn't it make more sense to believe that footballs that are thrown, squeezed, spiked and otherwise handled during wet, cold weather will probably lose some inflation during the course of a game? Has anyone from the NFL tested footballs at halftime of cold weather games prior to last weekend? The only reason that this is a national story is that some doofus writer in Indianapolis has an ax to grind with New England and/or he wants his 15 minutes of fame. So why didn't the second half footballs become underinflated? Maybe the outside conditions that affect inflation changed. Maybe fewer footballs were used during the second half. Maybe the second half footballs were slightly overinflated to make sure that even if they lost air they did not become underinflated.
It is reassuring to know that the NFL and the mainstream media are right on top of this story, though. This is a lot more important than PED use, concussions, domestic violence, fatal DWIs, etc. ESPN's Mike Wilbon wants the NFL to throw the hammer down on New England Coach Bill Belichick because Wilbon considers Belichick to be a habitual rules breaker. Does Wilbon have an opinion he would care to share with the world about his fellow ESPN employee Ray Lewis, who led Baltimore to two Super Bowl wins after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in a still-unsolved double murder? If you just want to cover sports, bloviate during a half hour TV show and make up controversies, then stick to that. If you want to be some kind of commentator and social crusader, then don't pick and choose your issues--unless you think that "Spygate" and some allegedly underinflated footballs are more important than a double murder. Before someone throws out "innocent until proven guilty" concerning Lewis, keep in mind (1) Lewis pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in an unsolved double murder so he is, by his own admission, at least guilty of obstruction of justice and (2) just because Lewis has not been proven criminally guilty of double murder that does not mean that the NFL and/or ESPN must hire him or glorify him.
Media members have been on Belichick's case for more than 20 years. They hated him when he mumbled through his press conferences in Cleveland, they mocked him when he did not take the head coaching job with the Jets and they have looked for every reason to discredit/belittle his success in New England. That is the real story here. This deflated football controversy has provided a great opportunity for grandstanding media blowhards to revive the so-called "Spygate" case. If we are going to stomp over that well-trod ground yet again, let's at least stick to the facts:
1) The Patriots did not "spy" on anyone; they conducted their filming out in the open, using a team employee who was dressed in full Patriots regalia. In a May 2008 article, I explained how ludicrous it is to suggest that the Patriots conducted some kind of covert, nefarious operation:
I have not been able to find the "Spygate" videos online but
SportsCenter had a great clip of someone--presumably Matt
Walsh--standing under a huge stadium scoreboard in full Patriots regalia
openly filming the field. The only way he could have been more visible
is if he had worn a Bozo the Clown nose and started waving giant
semaphore flags. There is no way that any objective person could watch
that tape and conclude that the Patriots were trying to hide what they
were doing. They committed a technical violation of an NFL rule and were
heavily punished for that but to call them "cheaters," to imply that
this was some kind of covert operation or to suggest that the Patriots'
Super Bowl wins are in any way tainted is absurd--and for Specter to
call for a Congressional investigation of the violation of an NFL rule
is ridiculous. Should Congress investigate holding penalties and pass
interference calls, too? Any analogy made between "Spygate" and the
performance-enhancing drugs problem is bogus because PED usage without a
prescription is illegal and represents a potential public health
problem, particularly for young athletes who look up to stars like Barry
Bonds and Roger Clemens.
2) Some sore losers and some New England haters are resuscitating the unproven allegation that the Patriots secretly taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough before New England's 20-17 victory over St. Louis in Super Bowl XXXVI; the Boston Herald irresponsibly--and without any evidence--published that unfounded rumor just two days before the Patriots lost 17-14 to the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII, a terrible accusation to make at any time and particularly before such a huge game. The Boston Herald subsequently published a retraction of that article, admitting that there is no factual basis for their original story and that they never should have published it.
3) Two-time Super Bowl winning coach Jimmy Johnson publicly stated that his teams and many other teams did the same kind of filming that the Patriots did.
4) The Patriots won 69.3% of their regular season games prior to "Spygate" and they have won more than 75% of their regular season games since "Spygate." The Patriots have the best regular season record in the NFL since "Spygate." "Yes," the man wearing the tinfoil hat while listening to alien communications from Area 51 says, "but New England won three Super Bowls before 'Spygate' and New England has not won a Super Bowl since 'Spygate.'" The answer to that is simple if you understand probability and sample size; the best NFL team wins the Super Bowl less than 25% of the time. That is why even when Tiger Woods was by far the best golfer in the world it was smart to bet on the field over Woods in any one particular event. The Patriots are in contention to win the Super Bowl almost every year, just like the San Antonio Spurs are in contention to win the NBA title almost every year--but even the best team cannot realistically expect to win every game or every championship.
5) If people are going to persist in declaring that New England's pre-2007 success is "tainted" by "Spygate" then let's take an unjaundiced look at some other Super Bowl champions. The New Orleans Saints figured, "If you can't beat 'em, maim 'em," and their ownership/management/coaching staff/players put out bounties on opposing players. The Saints mauled their way to the 2010 Super Bowl title before the NFL suspended GM Mickey Loomis, Coach Sean Payton and several other coaches and players after discovering the long paper trail proving the existence of the bounties. The San Francisco 49ers violated salary cap rules during the 1990s. Any time you hear the iconic "This one's for John" audio, keep in mind that John Elway failed miserably in his first three Super Bowl appearances before the Denver Broncos circumvented the salary cap in order to put enough talent around him to help him win the big game that he was never able to win while following the rules. The Broncos were twice fined nearly $1,000,000 for those salary cap violations. The 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers are considered the pioneers of NFL steroid usage, which could explain why so many players from those squads have experienced mental and/or physical problems before dying young.
If you believe that a guy sitting in the stands wearing Patriots regalia and filming signals that anyone could "intercept" by carefully watching a TV broadcast committed a sin against football remotely equivalent to the actions of the Saints, Broncos, 49ers and Steelers then there is nothing I or anyone else will be able to say to help you think more clearly.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
NCCA Corrects Injustice, Restores Joe Paterno's 111 Vacated Wins
The NCAA's brass realized that they had overstepped the bounds of their authority--and committed an injustice against an honorable man--by stripping Joe Paterno of 111 wins in 2012 and on Friday they belatedly corrected their error. Paterno thus regains his deserved status as the winningest coach in major college football history with 409 wins, 32 more than the retired Bobby Bowden.
The NCAA reached a settlement agreement with Penn State just weeks before the NCAA would have faced a trial concerning the legality of the consent decree that the NCAA issued in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal. That consent decree slapped Penn State with wide-ranging sanctions based on recommendations issued by the flawed and much-criticized Freeh Report.
There is no evidence proving that Paterno could have prevented Sandusky--who served under Paterno as Penn State's defensive coordinator--from engaging in his reprehensible conduct and in fact Paterno acted exactly as he was supposed to act based on the limited information that he knew. The NCAA admitted, in emails submitted to the court as evidence, that pursuing the harsh penalties that it sought to enforce against Penn State was a "bluff." Despite the NCAA's shaky case, Penn State's then-President Rodney Erickson signed the NCAA's consent decree, signifying that the university would not challenge any of the NCAA's findings or actions in the matter.
It is tempting and easy to pile criticism on Paterno and anyone else associated with Penn State's football program during the time that Sandusky preyed on young boys but guilt by association and guilt by incorrect inference are not methods that any fair-minded person should support. The ghastly nature of Sandusky's crimes does not excuse conducting a sloppy investigation afterward, culminating in a broad-brush "pox on all of their houses" set of punishments that singled out Paterno merely because Paterno is the most famous name associated with Penn State. A report drafted by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and a team of experts in law and sexual disorders concluded, "Regrettably, the Freeh report is riddled with errors and misjudgments. No objective individual would ever allow a report as fundamentally flawed, both in process and on the facts as this one, to be he defining statement on their own life, their family or any organization about which they care."
The NCAA rushed to judgment against Paterno and besmirched the reputation of a good man. Voicing support for Paterno does not in any way minimize how horrendously Sandusky acted and the reality that some officials at Penn State failed to act swiftly and properly--but there is no evidence that Paterno committed any wrongdoing. The investigators who brought Sandusky to justice disagreed with casting aspersions on Paterno: Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, explained, "We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development. It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet. Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."
The time, money and energy spent attacking Paterno would have been better used pursuing the Penn State officials who covered up Sandusky's crimes and then hindered the progress of the Sandusky investigation.
The NCAA reached a settlement agreement with Penn State just weeks before the NCAA would have faced a trial concerning the legality of the consent decree that the NCAA issued in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal. That consent decree slapped Penn State with wide-ranging sanctions based on recommendations issued by the flawed and much-criticized Freeh Report.
There is no evidence proving that Paterno could have prevented Sandusky--who served under Paterno as Penn State's defensive coordinator--from engaging in his reprehensible conduct and in fact Paterno acted exactly as he was supposed to act based on the limited information that he knew. The NCAA admitted, in emails submitted to the court as evidence, that pursuing the harsh penalties that it sought to enforce against Penn State was a "bluff." Despite the NCAA's shaky case, Penn State's then-President Rodney Erickson signed the NCAA's consent decree, signifying that the university would not challenge any of the NCAA's findings or actions in the matter.
It is tempting and easy to pile criticism on Paterno and anyone else associated with Penn State's football program during the time that Sandusky preyed on young boys but guilt by association and guilt by incorrect inference are not methods that any fair-minded person should support. The ghastly nature of Sandusky's crimes does not excuse conducting a sloppy investigation afterward, culminating in a broad-brush "pox on all of their houses" set of punishments that singled out Paterno merely because Paterno is the most famous name associated with Penn State. A report drafted by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and a team of experts in law and sexual disorders concluded, "Regrettably, the Freeh report is riddled with errors and misjudgments. No objective individual would ever allow a report as fundamentally flawed, both in process and on the facts as this one, to be he defining statement on their own life, their family or any organization about which they care."
The NCAA rushed to judgment against Paterno and besmirched the reputation of a good man. Voicing support for Paterno does not in any way minimize how horrendously Sandusky acted and the reality that some officials at Penn State failed to act swiftly and properly--but there is no evidence that Paterno committed any wrongdoing. The investigators who brought Sandusky to justice disagreed with casting aspersions on Paterno: Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, explained, "We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development. It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet. Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."
The time, money and energy spent attacking Paterno would have been better used pursuing the Penn State officials who covered up Sandusky's crimes and then hindered the progress of the Sandusky investigation.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
History of the Ohio Chess Congress
Dana Mackenzie, who was briefly a regular on the Ohio tournament scene and who earned the National Master title in the 1992 Ohio Chess Congress, notes that Ohio is one of just 13 states that does not publish a list of their official chess champions. Mackenzie's lament reinforces the notion that, in general, Ohio chess organizations do not have great respect for their tradition/history and their champions. The Dayton Chess Club repeatedly rebuffed my suggestions about including a history section on their website (or even just a bare bones listing of the winners of the Dayton Chess Club Championship, an event that dates back to 1959). In 2012, I posted a complete list of Dayton Chess Club Champions and the Chess section of this website includes several articles about Dayton Chess Club history and/or Ohio chess history, including The Dayton Chess Club Championship: Still Going Strong After Five Decades, Looking Back on Two Decades' Worth of Games Versus Clif Rowan, and Mike Anders is Gone Too Soon but His Joyful Spirit Will Never be Forgotten (11/7/24 note: I recently added articles about the Roosevelt Open and the Gem City Open).
Since it is doubtful that the Ohio Chess Association (or any other Ohio chess individual or group) is interested and/or able to produce a list of Ohio's Chess Champions, I decided to gather this information from official sources and publish it for posterity (11/7/24 note: the OCA used my list as a reference to update the Columbus Trophy and add the names of the 1994-2024 Ohio Chess Champions).
The list format is simple: year, site, Ohio Champion, score. I do not have full information for each year but I will continue to edit this list as my research uncovers more details. Each Ohio Chess Champion is listed in bold type; usually, the Ohio Chess Champion also finished first overall in the Ohio Chess Congress' Open section but for some years I was not able to determine the Ohio Champion's final score and/or whether or not the champion was also the overall tournament winner; any non-Ohio resident who finished with an equal or better score than the state champion(s) is listed in italic type in parentheses for the years in which such information is known.
OHIO CHESS CHAMPIONS
In the November/December 1990 Ohio Chess Bulletin,
David Moeser described the formative years of the Ohio Chess
Championship: "Early in the 1900s, and again from the late 1920s to
1944, the Ohio Championship was decided by a match between the Northern
Ohio Champion (NOC), representing Cleveland, and the Southern Ohio
Champion (SOC), representing Cincinnati." The modern Ohio Chess Association was founded in 1945.
????: Bluffton--C. Herman Bahnning 11/12 According to the September 1969 Chess Life, Bahnning scored 10 wins and two draws and he was one of the U.S. Chess Federation's "early state champions." That Chess Life article does not state the year that Bahnning won the Ohio Championship. Bahnning's name does not appear on Moeser's list, which includes the years 1910-11, 1928-1938 and 1944.
1945: Milton Ellenby 6/7
1946: Columbus--John Hoy 6/7
1947: Columbus--Thomas Ellison 6/7 Lawrence Jackson also scored 6/7 but, according to some 1947 Chess Life issues found by Mike Steve, Ellison won the title on tiebreak points. The Championship section included 27 players.
1948: Columbus--Elliott Stearns
1949: Walter Mann
1950: Akron--James Schroeder 5.5/6 The Championship section included 34 players.
1951: Columbus--Harald Miller 5.5/6
1952: Columbus--Tony Archipoff 6/7
1953: Columbus--Tony Archipoff 6/7
1954: Frank Ferryman 6/7 James Harkins also scored 6/7 but, according to the January/February 1991 Ohio Chess Bulletin, Ferryman won the title because he had 32.5 Solkoff tiebreak points compared to Harkins' 30.5.
1955: Charles Heising
1956: Robert McCready 6/7
1957: Robert Steinmeyer
1958: Ross Sprague 6/7 Charles Heising also scored 6/7 but, according to the January/February 1991 Ohio Chess Bulletin, Sprague won the title because he had 33.5 Solkoff tiebreak points compared to Heising's 29.5.
1959: Richard Kause 7/7
1960: Jack Witeczek 7/7
1961: Jerrold Fink/Saul Wachs/Thomas Lajcik 5.5/7
1962: George Miller/Richard Ling 6/7
1963: Rea Hayes 6.5/7
1964: Richard Kause/George Kellner/Thomas Wozney/James Harkins, Jr./David Presser 5.5/7 (Dave Reynolds 5.5). Per Parley Long's "OCA Yesterday" piece in the July-August 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin, Richard Noel won the Speed Championship, Ann Jepson was the Women's Champion, and Edgar Lawrence was the Junior Champion. The tournament had 55 players.
1965: Richard Noel 7/7
1966: Saul Wachs 7/7
1967: Thomas Wozney 6.5/7
1968: Akron--James Harkins, Jr. 6.5/7 The September/October 1968 Ohio Chess Bulletin notes that Harkins became just the fourth two-time Ohio Champion, joining Archipoff, Kause and Wachs. It is not clear why Wozney was not also listed as a two-time Ohio Champion.
1969: Columbus--Thomas Wozney 6/7 Wozney won by five median tiebreak points over Robert Burns and Richard Garber. A then-record 122 players participated, though the September/October 1969 Ohio Chess Bulletin notes that figures for the event's early years are incomplete. Saul Wachs won the Speed Championship, scoring 6/6 in the final section (there were three separate preliminary sections, with the section winners facing each other in a round robin final section).
1970: Joseph Shaffer 6/7 Per the November 2015 Ohio Chess Bulletin obituary for Shaffer, Shaffer won on tiebreaks over Richard Kause, Tom Wozney, and David Lane. The obituary notes that Shaffer played in the OCC in 1967 (scoring a draw against eventual champion Wozney), 1969-71, 1973-76, 1979-81, and 1984. Shaffer earned the USCF Life Master title, and he also won state championships in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
1971: Columbus--Robert Burns, Jr. 6/7 Burns (rated 2211 at the time) won on tiebreaks over Thomas Wozney (2211) and Ross Sprague (2229). Burns and Wozney remained tied after the first tiebreaker but then Burns prevailed based on Sonnenborn-Berger points. Burns drew his individual encounters with both Wozney and Sprague. Carl Evans won the Problem Solving Contest, while Joseph Shaffer took second place over Dave Wolford in a playoff.
1972: Thomas Wozney 4.5/6 Wozney (2243) was awarded the title on tiebreaks over former champions Ross Sprague (2256), Richard Kause (2176) and Jerry Fink (2228). The event had a record 201 players. Art Keske won the Speed Championship, while Robert Burns and Paul Szilagyi tied for second place. Calvin Blocker won the Problem Solving Contest; future International Master Blocker, then rated 1865, scored 2.5/6 in the main event.
1973: Columbus--James Harkins, Jr. 5.5/6 Harkins prevailed on tiebreaks over Joseph Shaffer, Ross Sprague and Rea Hayes.
1974: Robert Burns, Jr. 5/6 Burns (2204) won on tiebreaks over Jerry Fink (2188), James Voelker (2090), Thomas Wozney (2294) and Arthur Keske (2192). Calvin Blocker (2169) scored 4/6, losing to Wozney in the last round.
1975: Dayton--Ross Sprague 5.5/6 Sprague's victory marked the "...first time in many years that the title has not been decided on tie-breaks" (Quote from the cover of the September/October 1975 Ohio Chess Bulletin). The tournament's top-rated player Milan Vukcevich (2489), fresh off of a third place finish in the U.S. Championship, lost in the second round to Perry Sill (1872) but bounced back to tie for second. Vukcevich also claimed first place honors in the Ohio Speed Championship with a 7/7 score. Future IM (and chess author) John Donaldson, then rated 1881, finished second (5.5), while Calvin Blocker, Alan Casden, Greg Fulkerson, Ed Diener, and Dean Hart tied for third (5/7 each) out of 30 players.
1976: Toledo--Ross Sprague 5.5/6
1977: Cleveland--Danny Shapiro 5.5/6 Ross Sprague and Nachum Salman tied for second-third with 5/6. Richard Horvitz won the Ohio Speed Championship with a 6/6 score, followed by Calvin Blocker (5/6).
1978: Dayton--Robert Burns, Jr. 5/6 According to the September 1978 Dayton Chess Club Review, Calvin Blocker (2325) and Richard Noel (1865) also scored 5/6 but Burns (2232) won the championship on tiebreaks. Blocker defeated Errol Liebowitz (2159) in a 106 move, 10 hour, 10 minute game in the final round. Blocker won the Ohio Speed Championship with a 7/7 score, ahead of Richard Horvitz (6/7).
1979: Columbus--Errol Liebowitz 5.5/6 "He is the first champion since 1966 to come from the southern half of the state and first non-Cleveland resident to win since 1970. Three former state champions, Bob Burns, Joe Shaffer and Ross Sprague, along with Cincinnati expert Perry Sill, tied for second with 5-1" (Quote from December 1979 Chess Life & Review). A total of 170 players participated. Craig Roll and Ted Halstead each scored 5.5/6 to tie for first place in the 32 player Ohio Speed Chess Championship. The September-October 1979 Ohio Chess Bulletin notes that Roll and Halstead were declared co-champions after they drew a tiebreak game.
1980: Columbus--Alan Federl
1981: Columbus--Calvin Blocker 6/6
1982: Lima--Calvin Blocker 6/6
1983: Columbus--David Glueck 5/6 (Ed Formanek 5.5, Vince McCambridge 5)
1984: Calvin Blocker 5.5/6 Charles Diebert, Jim Weitthoff, Bruce Steinfeld, Randy Andrews and Dennis Gogel tied for first in the Ohio Speed Championship (4/5). A total of 127 players participated in two sections.
1985: Columbus--Calvin Blocker/James Schroeder 5/6 (Anatoly Lein 5; Lein would later become an Ohio resident and win the state title in 1999). The November-December 1985 Ohio Chess Bulletin states that 209 players participated, but does not indicate if this is a record number.
1986: Columbus--Calvin Blocker 5/6 (Igor Ivanov 6, Michael Rohde/Boris Gulko/Vivek Rao 5). The November-December 1986 Ohio Chess Bulletin states that 207 players participated.
1987: Columbus--Calvin Blocker 5/6 (Boris Gulko/David Norwood 5.5). The November-December 1987 Ohio Chess Bulletin states that the number of players (224) broke the event record set in 1973 (209), and further notes that TD Larry Paxton directed the OCC in both record-setting years.
1988: Columbus--Calvin Blocker 5/6 (Anatoly Lein/Andrew Karklins/Mike Blankenau 5). Ohio Expert Steve Seward and Indiana Champion James Mills shared first place in the 51 player Ohio Active Championship with a score of 4-0. The November-December 1988 Ohio Chess Bulletin describes the Active event's time control as "sudden death in 30."
1989: Cleveland--Calvin Blocker 5.5/6. According to the September-October 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin, Andrew Zebrowski and Connecticut's Eric Godin tied for first place in the 46 player Ohio Action Championship. Bruce Steinfeld earned first place in the 32 player Ohio Speed Championship with a 6/6 score.
1990: Columbus--Steve Wygle/Nachum Salman 4.5/6 (Vivek Rao/Ron Burnett 5.5, Sohan Ramakrishnepillai 5). Per the September/October 1990 Ohio Chess Bulletin, Ed Formanek won the "3rd Annual Ohio Active Chess Championship" with a score of 4.5/5. The time control is not listed, but was likely G/30 or faster; during that era, the designations "Rapid" or "Quick" were not used widely (if at all), and games contested at time controls slower than blitz but faster than classical were called "active" or "action" games. James Mills, Nachum Salman, Andrew Zebrowski, Bruce Steinfeld, Tom Britt, and Craig Stauffer tied for second with 4/5. Andrew Zebrowski won the Speed Chess Championship with a score of 5/5, while Ron Burnett, Pappu Murthy, Steve Seward, and Bruce Steinfeld finished tied for second with 4/5.
1991: Dayton--Boris Men 5/6 (Sergey Kudrin 5.5). Per the September/October 1991 Ohio Chess Bulletin, "Chuck Diebert convincingly thrashed a field of 19 participants in the WBCA-rated state speed chess championship" with 5.5/6, while James Mills finished second with 5/6. That issue also notes that Andrew Zebrowski won the Action Championship without providing any other details.
1992: Cleveland--Boris Men 5/6 (Gregory Kaidanov 5.5, Sergey Kudrin 5). Per the September/October 1992 Ohio Chess Bulletin (published in one volume labeled July-December 1992), Chuck Diebert, Joseph Belfer, David Allen and Carl R. Boor shared first place in the Ohio Action Championship with 3.5/4, finishing atop a 42 player field. William Wright's recap of the weekend's events notes, "A chess congress, by definition, is a number of different events all held at the same site. This year's event set what I claim to be a record number of side events." Wright states that five action quads were held, plus the blitz championship and the "first ever 15 minute championship." Andrew Zebrowski won the eight player 15 minute championship with 3.5/4. Zebrowski also won three of the five quads that he entered, while Vincent Charlette won the other two quads. Zebrowski won the 16 player blitz tournament with 12/14, two points ahead of Chuck Diebert. Joe Heithaus won the Reserve section of the blitz tournament with 11.5/14, while David Friedman finished second with 10/14.
1993: Columbus--Boris Men 5/6 (Alex Shabalov 5.5)
1994: Columbus--Boris Men 5.5/6 Ed Formanek and Steve Seward shared first place in the Ohio Action Championship, each scoring 4.5/5 in a 48 player field. The USCF crosstable is captioned "6th Ohio Action Championship," but event titles are chosen by the organizer and so the numbering may not be accurate. Novia Milojic scored 4/5 to finish first among Class "A" players (=3rd-7th overall), and David Friedman scored 3/5 to finish in a three way tie for second among Class "A" players (=10th-20th overall).
1995: Columbus--Alex Yermolinsky/Dmitry Berkovich/Calvin Blocker 5/6 Ram Dake and Carl R. Boor shared first place in what was reported to be the third Ohio Quick (G/15) Championship, each scoring 3.5/4 in a 22 player field (if it is correct that the first G/15 Championship was held in 1992 and the third in 1995, it is not clear if the second event was held in 1993 or 1994; based on the above notes, it appears that G/15 was being classified as "Quick" and distinguished from G/30 events that were designated as "Action").
1996: Columbus--Greg Serper/Boris Men/John Stopa 5/6
1997: Columbus--Greg Serper/Calvin Blocker/Boris Men/George Umezinwa 4/5 (Ed Formanek 4)
1998: Columbus--Greg Serper 4.5/6 (Alex Goldin/Eric Torman 5)
1999: Columbus--Calvin Blocker/Anatoly Lein 5/6
2000: Columbus--Calvin Blocker 5/6 Blocker's 13th title, according to the July/August 2000 Ohio Chess Bulletin, but my research proves that this was Blocker's 12th OCC title. Tom Britt won the 26 player Ohio Quick Chess Championship with a score of 5/5.
2001: Columbus--Mark Geist/Russell Wilson 4.5/6 (Stanislav Kriventsov 5.5). Stanislav Kriventsov won the 14 player Ohio Quick Chess Championship with a score of 3.5/4.
2002: Dayton--Anna Zatonskih/Carl B. Boor 4.5/6 (Alex Goldin 5.5, Stanislav Kriventsov/Yevgeniy Gershov/Jim Dean 4.5). Ananth Pappu won the Ohio Quick Championship (G/10, unrated) with a score of 5/5. David Friedman and Will Surlow tied for second (4/5).
2003: Dayton--Ananth Pappu/Mike Joelson/Bob Basalla 4.5/6 (Ron Burnett 5)
2004: Cleveland--Oliver Koo/Andrew Zebrowski/Paul Nemeth/Kasun Waidyaratne 4.5/6 (Ed Formanek 4.5)
2005: Columbus--Calvin Blocker/William Wright/Allan Bennett/Ananth Pappu/Ross Sprague 4/6 (Jaan Ehlvest 5.0, Stanislav Kriventsov 4.5, Mark Heimann 4). Kyle Jones and Ananth Pappu shared first place in the 22 player Ohio Blitz Championship by scoring 6.5/8 each.
2006: Dayton--John Bidwell 5/6 (Mark Heimann 5)
2007: Dayton--Carl B. Boor 5/6 (Mark Heimann 5)
2008: Columbus--Calvin Blocker 5/6 (Mark Heimann 5.5). Garrett Smith won the 32 player Ohio Blitz Championship with a score of 7.5/8. Tom Britt, Kyle Jones, and Fred Allsbrook tied for second with 6/8. Britt and Jones were the top Ohio finishers. Luis Benitez, Adonis Turner, and Brandon Mason shared first place in the 10 player Ohio G/30 Championship with 4/5. Benitez and Mason were the top Ohio finishers.
2009: Dayton--Kris Meekins 5/6 (Matthew Marsh 5) Meekins also won the Ohio Quick Championship (G/25 w/5 sec. delay) by scoring 4/4 in a field of 14 players. Ross Sprague and David Friedman tied for second (3/4). Ananth Pappu won the Ohio Blitz Championship by scoring 10.5/12. Marsh took clear second (8.5/12).
2010: Dayton--John Lodger Hughes/David Friedman 4.5/6 (Alex Goldin 5.5/Siddharth Ravichandran 5) The father-son duo Carl R. Boor and Carl B. Boor shared the Ohio Quick (G/25) Championship title by scoring 3.5/4 each.
2011: Columbus--Carl B. Boor/Walker Griggs 5/6 (Alex Zelner 5) The official USCF crosstable incorrectly lists Boor with 4.5 but the Ohio Chess Bulletin correctly credits Boor with four wins, one draw and one bye.
2012: Cleveland--Goran Vojinovic/Walker Griggs 5/6
2013: Cleveland--Calvin Blocker/Oliver Koo/William Wright/John Lodger Hughes 4.5/6 (Bryan Smith 5)
2014: Dayton--Hans Multhopp 5/6. Yuri Barnakov, Will Sedlar, and John Bidwill each scored 4/5 to share first place in the 13 player Ohio Quick Championship. Will Sedlar scored 7.5/8 to take clear first in the eight player round robin Ohio Blitz Championship.
2015: Columbus--Goran Vojinovic 4.5/5
2016: Columbus--Mika Brattain 6/7 (Alex Shabalov 6) Yuri Barnakov won the Ohio Blitz Championship (G/5, no delay) by scoring 7/7 in a field of 20 players. Carl B. Boor finished second (6/7) and David Friedman finished third (5/7).
2017: Cleveland--David Allen/Arvind Jayaraman 4/5 (Grant Xu 4.5) No side events were held.
2018: Cincinnati--Mika Brattain 6/6 No side events were held.
2019: Cleveland--Elton Cao 5.5/6 No side events were held.
2020: ONLINE (COVID-19)--Eigen Wang/John Miller/Christian Thornton 3/5 (Alex Lenderman/Gadir Guseinov 4) No side events were held.
2021: Akron--Eigen Wang/Deshawn Kelley 4/5 (Eyal Grinberg 4.5, Alex Shabalov/Omer Reshef 4) No side events were held.
2022: Newark--Deshawn Kelley 4/5 (Ivan Schitco 4.5, David Brodsky/Rahul Srivatshav 4) For the first time since 2016, a side event was held. Evan Park won the Ohio Blitz Championship (G/5, no delay) by scoring 8/8 in a field of 12 players. Benjamin Lin finished second (6.5/8) and David Friedman finished third (5/8, top Ohio scorer).
2023: Akron--Justin Storn 4/5 (Alex Fishbein 4.5, Mitch Fishbein 4) Jesse Ren won the Ohio Blitz Championship (G/3 w/2 second increment) by scoring 7/8 in a field of 32 players. Braeden Hart finished second (6.5/8).
2024: Newark--Arjun Soni 4.5/5 Soni was born in 2010, and is one of the youngest OCC champions ever. Kasun Waidyaratne (born in 1992, won in 2004), and Elton Cao (born in 2004, won in 2019) are the only other champions aged 15 or younger that I know about. Two side events were held for the first time since 2014. Henry Lu won the Friday night quick tournament (a three player double round robin) with 3.5/4. Sharath Radhakrishnan and Arjun Soni won the Ohio Chess Congress Blitz by scoring 6/7 each in a field of 12 players.
2025: Newark--Dalton Perrine 4.5/5 (Alex Shabalov, Erick Zhao 4.5) Erick Zhao won the Ohio Chess Congress Blitz by scoring 6.5/7 in a field of 18 players.
NOTES:
This history project will be an ongoing labor of love until I am able to provide complete information about every Ohio Chess Congress. I will update this list each year as new winners are crowned and I will make any other relevant additions/changes as my research uncovers more data about previous champions.
It is widely known that International Master Calvin Blocker has won the most Ohio Chess Championships, but for some time there has been uncertainty regarding how many titles he has actually captured. The July/August 2000 Ohio Chess Bulletin states that Blocker's win in that year's event was his 13th title but my research proves that the 2000 championship was Blocker's 12th title (1981-82, 1984-1989, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000). Perhaps the source of confusion for the writer of the 2000 article comes from counting Blocker as the 1978 champion or co-champion; even though Blocker shared top honors with a 5/6 score in 1978, he lost the title on tiebreaks to Robert Burns (the OCA has not followed a consistent policy regarding the use of tiebreaks to determine the state champion and in this article I have simply followed the standards that were applied at the time that each tournament was held).
Blocker added titles in 2005, 2008 and 2013 to push his total to 15. It is likely that very few players have won more state championships--in any state, not just Ohio--than Calvin Blocker. It is unfortunate that the Ohio Chess Association has not done a better job of keeping widely available, accurate records about this remarkable accomplishment--and about a great event that has been held annually without interruption since 1945.
*****
Sources: Various issues of the Ohio Chess Bulletin, U.S. Chess Federation crosstables, Chess Life issues dating back to the late 1960s, and the Dayton Chess Club Review.
1/6/15 edit: I added some names to the list after receiving dozens of Ohio Chess Bulletins from Earle Wikle.
1/15/15 edit: Thanks to information provided by Robert
Loggins and Mike Steve, I have been able to identify all of the pre-1969 Ohio Champions who did not appear on my original list.
4/15/15 edit: According to Mike Steve, Witeczek's perfect score in 1960 was reported in the local Lorain, Ohio newspaper. Steve notes that Witeczek later moved to Michigan and won the Michigan State Championship. Also, Steve found a 1981 OCC crosstable listing Blocker as the 6-0 winner, meaning that Blocker scored back to back perfect scores in 1981 and 1982. Blocker is the only player who can be confirmed with posting two perfect OCC scores.
9/5/22 edit: I not only added the information for the just-completed 2022 Ohio Chess Congress, but I also went through my Ohio Chess Bulletin archive and added details about the 1970 OCC, and about side events held in 1964, 1979, 1988-1992, 1995, 2000-2001, 2005, 2008, and 2014. Further, it should be noted that my consistent practice from when I first wrote this article is that if I can confirm that no side events were held in a given year then that is mentioned. If no note is provided, then I have no information about whether side events were held that year.
8/25/23 edit: I added information about the 1994 Ohio Action Championship, which is captioned "6th Ohio Action Championship" in the official USCF crosstable, and I expanded the notes about other Action and G/15 events held in the late 1980s/early to mid 1990s.
9/2/24 edit: I corrected the spelling of some champions' names to match the spelling displayed on "The Columbus Trophy," which used to be given to the Ohio Champion to keep for one year (it is now the property of the John G. White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library). Here are three pictures of "The Columbus Trophy" from the 2024 Ohio Chess Congress (the first picture is from a Facebook post by 2024 OCC organizer Kathy Lin; I took the second and third pictures):
No names have been engraved on the trophy since 1994. Hopefully, the OCA will remedy this lapse as soon as possible.
11/7/24 edit: The Columbus Trophy has been updated to include the names of all of the post-1994 champions.
9/5/25 edit: Here are pictures of the updated Columbus Trophy plaques for 1976-2005 and for 2006-2025 (both pictures courtesy of 2025 OCC organizer Kathy Lin):
.JPG)
*****
Author's Personal Note (edited 11/7/24):
In 2010, John Lodger Hughes and I each scored 4.5/6. We were the highest scoring established Ohio residents but initially Siddharth Ravichandran--a strong Indian playing in his one and only Ohio event--was erroneously considered to be an Ohio resident and thus was crowned as the Ohio Champion with 5/6. When the OCA updated the Columbus Trophy in 2024, I presented documentation regarding this situation, and the OCA correctly determined that John Lodger Hughes and I should be listed as co-champions for 2010. In 2010, I defeated reigning Ohio Champion Kris Meekins in the first round with a Queen sacrifice leading to checkmate, and then in the sixth round I defeated two-time Ohio Champion (2003, 2005) Ananth Pappu.
On 11/6/24, Kathy Lin interviewed me about my chess career in general, and the 2010 Ohio Chess Congress in particular:
In 2005, out of staters Jaan Ehlvest (5/6) and Stanislav Kriventsov (4.5/6) finished 1st-2nd, while five players shared the state title with 4/6. I finished with 3.5/6, though I was not truly in contention since it took a last round win for me just to pull within a half point of the Ohio co-Champions.
My strongest performance other than 2010 came in 2000, when I finished tied for 5th-9th overall with 4/6, one point behind tournament winner/Ohio Champion Calvin Blocker, who defeated me in round one.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Johnny Manziel Shows the World the Difference Between College Ball and Pro Ball
Johnny Manziel's disastrous debut as an NFL starter (10-18 passing for 80 yards, two interceptions and no touchdowns as his Cleveland Browns lost 30-0 at home to the Cincinnati Bengals last Sunday) provided an excellent demonstration of the huge difference between collegiate sports and professional sports. Manziel set the college football world on fire last season en route to winning the Heisman Trophy but in the complex, fast-paced hard hitting pro football world he looked small, slow, confused and noodle-armed as his ill-advised throws wobbled off-target.
The idea that Manziel offered the Browns a better chance to win than Brian Hoyer made little sense. Hoyer led the Browns to a 7-6 record as the starting quarterback this season after going 3-0 as the Browns' starter last season before succumbing to a season-ending knee injury (the Browns went 1-10 the rest of the way and finished 1-12 in the games that Hoyer did not start). Hoyer is a journeyman NFL quarterback but he is also a six year veteran who has logged 15 NFL starts in 29 NFL games. Hoyer struggled in recent games but his problems could probably be attributed at least as much to the loss of All-Pro center Alex Mack as to any of Hoyer's individual shortcomings; Hoyer is not a highly accurate passer by modern NFL standards (his career completion percentage is .571) and he is not very mobile but, surrounded by the right talent and guided by the right coaching, he is a solid NFL starter and a very good NFL backup.
In contrast, Manziel has yet to establish anything positive about himself as an NFL player. It seems as if Coach Mike Pettine and the Browns organization tapped him as the starter not so much because they know that he is better than Hoyer but rather because the fans and the media clamored for a change. The cliche states that if a coach listens to the media and the fans too often then he will soon be sitting next to them.
Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young, perhaps the best NFL analyst in ESPN's overcrowded stable, often speaks of the "craft" of quarterbacking; he laments that Jay Cutler, who possesses more physical talent than Hoyer or Manziel, has yet to put in the time and effort to master that "craft." There is no way that Manziel, who likely has received very few repetitions in practice with the Browns' first team, understands enough about that "craft" to be an effective NFL starter at this point in his career. The Browns should have finished out the season with Hoyer as the starter and found out for sure whether or not he could have led the Browns to a 10-6 record and a possible playoff berth. Then, if the Browns were not fully satisfied with Hoyer, they could have given Manziel the benefit of a full offseason of film study plus some repetitions in practice with the first team.
Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh described the proper "care and feeding" of young quarterbacks. He considered it a mistake to just throw a young quarterback into the fire. When he mentored Joe Montana, a mobile and undersized hot shot college quarterback, Walsh made sure that at first he only used Montana in select situations that Montana had thoroughly worked on in practice. This helped to build Montana's confidence in himself as an NFL player and also helped to build his teammates' confidence in him. I doubt that Walsh would have started Manziel last week (a better question is whether Walsh would have even drafted Manziel at all but that is a story for another day).
Watching Manziel flail around nervously and helplessly reminded me of a couple other recent sports stories. Rookie Cleveland Cavaliers Coach David Blatt, who enjoyed a long and distinguished FIBA coaching career, often reminds media members that various milestones--his first game as an NBA coach, his first NBA win, etc.--are not really milestones from his perspective because he has already coached teams to championships. Blatt does not seem to understand the vast difference between even high level FIBA play and the NBA. The NBA is the most sophisticated basketball league in the world and its players are bigger, faster, quicker and smarter than the players in other leagues. Properly coached, the best NBA players can go through a quick summer training camp and then win FIBA gold medals against seasoned FIBA teams that are used to playing under FIBA rules with FIBA's inconsistent officiating. No FIBA team could just jump into the NBA and perform at a championship level. If Blatt really believes that his FIBA championships are in any way equivalent to an NBA title then he and the Cavaliers are going to experience some problems during the NBA playoffs when the best NBA coaches will be playing grandmaster chess and Blatt will be playing FIBA checkers.
Similarly, every season when there is a historically bad NBA team it does not take long for fans and media members to speculate about whether or not that team could beat the best team in college basketball. The 11-0 Kentucky Wildcats are the consensus best team in college basketball right now. The 2-23 Philadelphia 76ers may be the worst team in NBA history--and if they played the Kentucky Wildcats today the 76ers would beat the Wildcats like the Wildcats stole something. There is no conceivable way that the Wildcats would win a seven game series versus the 76ers. Yes, the Wildcats have several players who are projected to be first round NBA draft selections--but the 76ers have three first round draft selections on their active roster (including Michael Carter-Williams, the 2014 NBA Rookie of the Year) and several other veteran NBA players. NBA players are grown men physically and mentally. It is far from certain that Kentucky will even win the college championship, let alone be able to beat a team of grown men, several of whom were collegiate stars in their own right before becoming pro basketball players.
Television sports coverage does a disservice on many levels but one of the major elements that is not obvious to casual viewers is how much more complex pro sports are compared to their college counterparts. The pro game is so much faster and more sophisticated than the college game. This is evident if you watch a college game (basketball or football) in person and then watch a pro game in person. There is inevitably an adjustment period for rookie players and for rookie coaches. If you doubt that, just look at Manziel or Blatt; both men may become highly successful pros eventually but right now they are learning why Jerry Glanville used to say that NFL stands for "not for long": if you do not adjust to the speed and complexity of pro sports then you will not participate in pro sports for very long.
The idea that Manziel offered the Browns a better chance to win than Brian Hoyer made little sense. Hoyer led the Browns to a 7-6 record as the starting quarterback this season after going 3-0 as the Browns' starter last season before succumbing to a season-ending knee injury (the Browns went 1-10 the rest of the way and finished 1-12 in the games that Hoyer did not start). Hoyer is a journeyman NFL quarterback but he is also a six year veteran who has logged 15 NFL starts in 29 NFL games. Hoyer struggled in recent games but his problems could probably be attributed at least as much to the loss of All-Pro center Alex Mack as to any of Hoyer's individual shortcomings; Hoyer is not a highly accurate passer by modern NFL standards (his career completion percentage is .571) and he is not very mobile but, surrounded by the right talent and guided by the right coaching, he is a solid NFL starter and a very good NFL backup.
In contrast, Manziel has yet to establish anything positive about himself as an NFL player. It seems as if Coach Mike Pettine and the Browns organization tapped him as the starter not so much because they know that he is better than Hoyer but rather because the fans and the media clamored for a change. The cliche states that if a coach listens to the media and the fans too often then he will soon be sitting next to them.
Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young, perhaps the best NFL analyst in ESPN's overcrowded stable, often speaks of the "craft" of quarterbacking; he laments that Jay Cutler, who possesses more physical talent than Hoyer or Manziel, has yet to put in the time and effort to master that "craft." There is no way that Manziel, who likely has received very few repetitions in practice with the Browns' first team, understands enough about that "craft" to be an effective NFL starter at this point in his career. The Browns should have finished out the season with Hoyer as the starter and found out for sure whether or not he could have led the Browns to a 10-6 record and a possible playoff berth. Then, if the Browns were not fully satisfied with Hoyer, they could have given Manziel the benefit of a full offseason of film study plus some repetitions in practice with the first team.
Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh described the proper "care and feeding" of young quarterbacks. He considered it a mistake to just throw a young quarterback into the fire. When he mentored Joe Montana, a mobile and undersized hot shot college quarterback, Walsh made sure that at first he only used Montana in select situations that Montana had thoroughly worked on in practice. This helped to build Montana's confidence in himself as an NFL player and also helped to build his teammates' confidence in him. I doubt that Walsh would have started Manziel last week (a better question is whether Walsh would have even drafted Manziel at all but that is a story for another day).
Watching Manziel flail around nervously and helplessly reminded me of a couple other recent sports stories. Rookie Cleveland Cavaliers Coach David Blatt, who enjoyed a long and distinguished FIBA coaching career, often reminds media members that various milestones--his first game as an NBA coach, his first NBA win, etc.--are not really milestones from his perspective because he has already coached teams to championships. Blatt does not seem to understand the vast difference between even high level FIBA play and the NBA. The NBA is the most sophisticated basketball league in the world and its players are bigger, faster, quicker and smarter than the players in other leagues. Properly coached, the best NBA players can go through a quick summer training camp and then win FIBA gold medals against seasoned FIBA teams that are used to playing under FIBA rules with FIBA's inconsistent officiating. No FIBA team could just jump into the NBA and perform at a championship level. If Blatt really believes that his FIBA championships are in any way equivalent to an NBA title then he and the Cavaliers are going to experience some problems during the NBA playoffs when the best NBA coaches will be playing grandmaster chess and Blatt will be playing FIBA checkers.
Similarly, every season when there is a historically bad NBA team it does not take long for fans and media members to speculate about whether or not that team could beat the best team in college basketball. The 11-0 Kentucky Wildcats are the consensus best team in college basketball right now. The 2-23 Philadelphia 76ers may be the worst team in NBA history--and if they played the Kentucky Wildcats today the 76ers would beat the Wildcats like the Wildcats stole something. There is no conceivable way that the Wildcats would win a seven game series versus the 76ers. Yes, the Wildcats have several players who are projected to be first round NBA draft selections--but the 76ers have three first round draft selections on their active roster (including Michael Carter-Williams, the 2014 NBA Rookie of the Year) and several other veteran NBA players. NBA players are grown men physically and mentally. It is far from certain that Kentucky will even win the college championship, let alone be able to beat a team of grown men, several of whom were collegiate stars in their own right before becoming pro basketball players.
Television sports coverage does a disservice on many levels but one of the major elements that is not obvious to casual viewers is how much more complex pro sports are compared to their college counterparts. The pro game is so much faster and more sophisticated than the college game. This is evident if you watch a college game (basketball or football) in person and then watch a pro game in person. There is inevitably an adjustment period for rookie players and for rookie coaches. If you doubt that, just look at Manziel or Blatt; both men may become highly successful pros eventually but right now they are learning why Jerry Glanville used to say that NFL stands for "not for long": if you do not adjust to the speed and complexity of pro sports then you will not participate in pro sports for very long.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Magnus Carlsen Convincingly Retains World Chess Championship
In November, Magnus Carlsen--the highest rated chess player ever--defeated former World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand 6.5-4.5 to retain the World Chess Champion title. Last year, Carlsen dethroned Anand in a 6.5-3.5 rout on Anand's home turf in India. After the final game of the most recent match, Carlsen told Leontxo Garcia, "I do not know if nerves were the key factor in general. But in the last
game, nerves definitely had something to say. But I think nerves are a
part of your strength and weaknesses as a chess player. If you have bad
nerves, it is unfortunate but it is no excuse. In that game showed I
have stronger nerves, probably because of the age difference."
Shortly after Carlsen defended his crown, Garry Kasparov (the 1985-2000 World Chess Champion who held the rating record that Carlsen eclipsed) offered his typically blunt (and insighftul) comments:
This year's match between Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand proved that time doesn't run backwards. It is extremely difficult to overcome a gap of a full generation between the players. I believe Magnus Carlsen is a special talent, and even though he didn't play his best and Anand played better than he did last year, Magnus won. The score was a little closer than last year mostly due to Carlsen's nerves in a psychologically difficult rematch after he beat Anand so easily last year.
Did the run of the match surprise me in any aspect? Before the match began I predicted [to a number of newspapers and to Frederic Friedel of ChessBase] that Carlsen would win by two points. Magnus had one important advantage on his side: he is the better player. But it was atypical for Carlsen to not make the most of his chances in several games. I blame that on tension. For him this match was psychologically not easy, after he had beat Anand so decisively in 2013.
Championship level chess requires intelligence, resourcefulness and energy but it also requires prodigious amounts of confidence/psychological strength. In "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship, I discussed the emotional fortitude that Anand displayed in his first title defense since becoming the 15th classical World Chess Champion:
During an an interview conducted shortly after the match with Topalov ended, Anand provided some insights about the mentality that is required to win such a competition, stating, "It's just a question of nerves." In this high tech, computer dominated era, elite chess players prepare their opening moves to a greater and deeper extent than at any time in chess history but during the games they are under great pressure to remember this preparation while also being ready for any possible surprises (known as theoretical novelties) that their opponents might unleash. Topalov won the first game of the match when Anand got confused about the correct order of his prepared moves, an error which gave Topalov a crushing attack against Anand's exposed king--but Anand showed great psychological resilience by striking back with a game two win to level the score.
While Anand demonstrated strong nerves versus Topalov--and in several other high level encounters--he has now faltered twice against Carlsen. It is obvious that Carlsen is the stronger player but it is fascinating to observe how that superiority manifests itself not only in the moves that Carlsen plays but also in the way that Carlsen's strength affects Anand. Anand demonstrably lacks confidence against Carlsen and at times Anand's play is unrecognizable as he struggles to figure out how to fight on even terms with his much younger rival. If chess games were purely decided at an intellectual level then Anand would play very well and Carlsen would just play better but what we have seen in both matches is that, at key moments, Anand either blunders outright or at the very least he lacks the confidence to pursue the best path, to play the moves that he might reflexively play against a less intimidating opponent.
It is very difficult to play against Carlsen for reasons that extend beyond his chess talent. Carlsen is a chess warrior who has great and commendable fighting spirit: "More people have to change their attitude. Too many have seen chess as a scientific process where you exchange ideas in openings and midgames and if there is no clear advantage you agree a draw. But you have to fight until the end. I’ve stopped agreeing draws--it's not a natural part of the game. I think others will do the same thing." Carlsen insists that "a modern sportsman" must "fight until the last moment every day, in every tournament. Being tired is no excuse for making mistakes."
As a young player, Anand relied on his tactical acumen and his exceptionally fast rate of play to steamroll most opponents; now Anand is not as sharp tactically nor does he calculate so quickly and thus he has evolved into a player who prepares his openings very deeply and thoroughly in order to guide the game onto terrain that Anand expects to be comfortable for him and equally uncomfortable for his opponent--but Carlsen is largely unaffected and unimpressed by Anand's computer-assisted preparation. In Magnus Carlsen, an Unlikely Chess Master, Grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen (one of Carlsen's seconds) explains, “Magnus believes in his pure chess strengths. You shouldn't be able to do that in today's world and none of us thought it was possible. Luckily, we were wrong.” A recent Financial Times article notes that Carlsen is refuting the notion that chess is played out because the silicon beasts know all and see all:
Whereas computer analysis has raised the relative importance of the opening for most players, Mr. Carlsen has relegated it. He looks instead to win a game later on via the steady and patient accumulation of sometimes almost imperceptible advantages.
"The space that chess occupies is so gigantic that in spite of all the computer work done today, you can get out of it," says Mr. [Frederic] Friedel, who occasionally chaperoned Mr. Carlsen at tournaments when he was a teenager. "Magnus goes off into sidelines . . . then he just outplays people. It is extraordinary and amazing."
After beating Anand for the second consecutive time, Carlsen commented that this is two down and five more to go, a reference to his goal to surpass Garry Kasparov's total of six successful World Chess Championship matches. Carlsen's next title defense will take place in the United States in 2016. The United States has hosted the lineal World Chess Championship six times (winner listed first, defending champion in bold): 1886 (Steinitz v. Zukertort), 1891 (Steinitz v. Gunsberg), 1894 (Lasker v. Steinitz), 1907 (Lasker v. Marshall), 1990 (Kasparov v. Karpov), 1995 (Kasparov v. Anand). In addition to those six matches, the United States also hosted FIDE's 1999 World Chess Championship event in Las Vegas but that tournament did not include the reigning, undefeated champion Kasparov--who captured the lineal title in 1985 and retained it until losing a match to Vladimir Kramnik in 2000--and thus should not be considered part of the authentic, lineal title chain.
Shortly after Carlsen defended his crown, Garry Kasparov (the 1985-2000 World Chess Champion who held the rating record that Carlsen eclipsed) offered his typically blunt (and insighftul) comments:
This year's match between Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand proved that time doesn't run backwards. It is extremely difficult to overcome a gap of a full generation between the players. I believe Magnus Carlsen is a special talent, and even though he didn't play his best and Anand played better than he did last year, Magnus won. The score was a little closer than last year mostly due to Carlsen's nerves in a psychologically difficult rematch after he beat Anand so easily last year.
Did the run of the match surprise me in any aspect? Before the match began I predicted [to a number of newspapers and to Frederic Friedel of ChessBase] that Carlsen would win by two points. Magnus had one important advantage on his side: he is the better player. But it was atypical for Carlsen to not make the most of his chances in several games. I blame that on tension. For him this match was psychologically not easy, after he had beat Anand so decisively in 2013.
Championship level chess requires intelligence, resourcefulness and energy but it also requires prodigious amounts of confidence/psychological strength. In "It's Just a Question of Nerves": Anand Defeats Topalov 6.5-5.5 to Retain World Chess Championship, I discussed the emotional fortitude that Anand displayed in his first title defense since becoming the 15th classical World Chess Champion:
During an an interview conducted shortly after the match with Topalov ended, Anand provided some insights about the mentality that is required to win such a competition, stating, "It's just a question of nerves." In this high tech, computer dominated era, elite chess players prepare their opening moves to a greater and deeper extent than at any time in chess history but during the games they are under great pressure to remember this preparation while also being ready for any possible surprises (known as theoretical novelties) that their opponents might unleash. Topalov won the first game of the match when Anand got confused about the correct order of his prepared moves, an error which gave Topalov a crushing attack against Anand's exposed king--but Anand showed great psychological resilience by striking back with a game two win to level the score.
While Anand demonstrated strong nerves versus Topalov--and in several other high level encounters--he has now faltered twice against Carlsen. It is obvious that Carlsen is the stronger player but it is fascinating to observe how that superiority manifests itself not only in the moves that Carlsen plays but also in the way that Carlsen's strength affects Anand. Anand demonstrably lacks confidence against Carlsen and at times Anand's play is unrecognizable as he struggles to figure out how to fight on even terms with his much younger rival. If chess games were purely decided at an intellectual level then Anand would play very well and Carlsen would just play better but what we have seen in both matches is that, at key moments, Anand either blunders outright or at the very least he lacks the confidence to pursue the best path, to play the moves that he might reflexively play against a less intimidating opponent.
It is very difficult to play against Carlsen for reasons that extend beyond his chess talent. Carlsen is a chess warrior who has great and commendable fighting spirit: "More people have to change their attitude. Too many have seen chess as a scientific process where you exchange ideas in openings and midgames and if there is no clear advantage you agree a draw. But you have to fight until the end. I’ve stopped agreeing draws--it's not a natural part of the game. I think others will do the same thing." Carlsen insists that "a modern sportsman" must "fight until the last moment every day, in every tournament. Being tired is no excuse for making mistakes."
As a young player, Anand relied on his tactical acumen and his exceptionally fast rate of play to steamroll most opponents; now Anand is not as sharp tactically nor does he calculate so quickly and thus he has evolved into a player who prepares his openings very deeply and thoroughly in order to guide the game onto terrain that Anand expects to be comfortable for him and equally uncomfortable for his opponent--but Carlsen is largely unaffected and unimpressed by Anand's computer-assisted preparation. In Magnus Carlsen, an Unlikely Chess Master, Grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen (one of Carlsen's seconds) explains, “Magnus believes in his pure chess strengths. You shouldn't be able to do that in today's world and none of us thought it was possible. Luckily, we were wrong.” A recent Financial Times article notes that Carlsen is refuting the notion that chess is played out because the silicon beasts know all and see all:
Whereas computer analysis has raised the relative importance of the opening for most players, Mr. Carlsen has relegated it. He looks instead to win a game later on via the steady and patient accumulation of sometimes almost imperceptible advantages.
"The space that chess occupies is so gigantic that in spite of all the computer work done today, you can get out of it," says Mr. [Frederic] Friedel, who occasionally chaperoned Mr. Carlsen at tournaments when he was a teenager. "Magnus goes off into sidelines . . . then he just outplays people. It is extraordinary and amazing."
After beating Anand for the second consecutive time, Carlsen commented that this is two down and five more to go, a reference to his goal to surpass Garry Kasparov's total of six successful World Chess Championship matches. Carlsen's next title defense will take place in the United States in 2016. The United States has hosted the lineal World Chess Championship six times (winner listed first, defending champion in bold): 1886 (Steinitz v. Zukertort), 1891 (Steinitz v. Gunsberg), 1894 (Lasker v. Steinitz), 1907 (Lasker v. Marshall), 1990 (Kasparov v. Karpov), 1995 (Kasparov v. Anand). In addition to those six matches, the United States also hosted FIDE's 1999 World Chess Championship event in Las Vegas but that tournament did not include the reigning, undefeated champion Kasparov--who captured the lineal title in 1985 and retained it until losing a match to Vladimir Kramnik in 2000--and thus should not be considered part of the authentic, lineal title chain.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Great Chess Performances at the Elite Level
A great athletic feat inevitably brings to mind the accomplishments of performers from previous eras; when Kobe Bryant authors a streak of games with at least 45 points, educated fans recall an even more prodigious Wilt Chamberlain scoring streak. Similarly, Fabiano Caruana's fantastic result in the Sinquefield Cup--winning his first seven games in a row en route to an undefeated first place score of 8.5/10 against the highest rated field in chess history--has inevitably drawn comparisons to some other tremendous winning streaks/first place results. Bobby Fischer won 20 consecutive games en route to capturing the World
Championship in 1972. He won his last seven games in the 1970 Interzonal,
swept Mark Taimanov 6-0 in the Candidates Quarterfinals, swept Bent
Larsen 6-0 in the Candidates Semifinals and won the first game of his
Candidates Finals match against former World Champion Tigran Petrosian
(Fischer lost the second game but won the match 6.5-2.5). In a 2005 article, Jeff Sonas--who has developed his own chess rating system to compare players from different eras--declared that Fischer's sweep of Larsen is the greatest match performance in chess history. According to Sonas' 2005 calculations, Anatoly Karpov's Linares 1994 triumph is the single best
tournament performance in chess history, followed by Garry Kasparov (Tilburg
1989), Emanuel Lasker (London 1899), Garry Kasparov (Linares 1999), Mikhail Tal (1959 Candidates) and Alexander Alekhine (San Remo 1930). Based on official FIDE ratings, the three best tournament results are Fabiano Caruana (3103 performance rating, Sinquefield Cup 2014), Magnus Carlsen (3002 performance rating, Pearl Spring 2009) and Anatoly Karpov (2985 performance rating, Linares 1994).
While Fischer's 20 game winning streak is an unparalleled feat considering the stakes and the caliber of his opponents, Fischer actually had an even longer streak (24 games)--albeit against relatively "weaker" players--from 1963-65, punctuated by his unprecedented 11/11 sweep of the 1963-64 U.S. Championship. Fischer scored 25.5/26 in 1963! Fischer only played one tournament game in 1964, a final round victory against Anthony Saidy to top off his perfect score in the U.S. Championship. Fischer skipped the 1964 Interzonal and the 1964 Chess Olympiad because of his disputes with the way that FIDE organized international chess. Instead, he went on tour throughout the United States giving simultaneous exhibitions. Imagine LeBron James leaving the NBA for a year to play in the Rucker League or go on tour with streetball players and you get some sense of what the chess world lost in 1964 (not to mention what was lost when Fischer abruptly left the sport in 1972).
Mikhail Tal, who stormed the chess summit in the late 1950s and early 1960s and became the youngest World Champion (23, a record since broken by Garry Kasparov), enjoyed a revival in the early 1970s after battling some serious health problems. Tal put together the two longest official elite level undefeated streaks: 95 games (46 wins and 49 draws from 1973-74) and 86 games (47 wins and 39 draws from 1972-73). Tal's streaks are even more remarkable when one considers his deserved reputation for spectacular attacks and combinations; clearly, Tal was a much more well-rounded and consistent player than many people may realize.
Any list of great chess streaks must mention Jose Raul Capablanca, who went eight years without suffering a loss (1916-1924), including his successful 1921 World Championship match against Emanuel Lasker. However, Capablanca only played 63 games during that span.
Is Caruana's recent performance a sign that he is poised to become World Champion? It will be interesting to see if Caruana is able to dethrone Magnus Carlsen, the highest rated chess player of all-time.
While Fischer's 20 game winning streak is an unparalleled feat considering the stakes and the caliber of his opponents, Fischer actually had an even longer streak (24 games)--albeit against relatively "weaker" players--from 1963-65, punctuated by his unprecedented 11/11 sweep of the 1963-64 U.S. Championship. Fischer scored 25.5/26 in 1963! Fischer only played one tournament game in 1964, a final round victory against Anthony Saidy to top off his perfect score in the U.S. Championship. Fischer skipped the 1964 Interzonal and the 1964 Chess Olympiad because of his disputes with the way that FIDE organized international chess. Instead, he went on tour throughout the United States giving simultaneous exhibitions. Imagine LeBron James leaving the NBA for a year to play in the Rucker League or go on tour with streetball players and you get some sense of what the chess world lost in 1964 (not to mention what was lost when Fischer abruptly left the sport in 1972).
Mikhail Tal, who stormed the chess summit in the late 1950s and early 1960s and became the youngest World Champion (23, a record since broken by Garry Kasparov), enjoyed a revival in the early 1970s after battling some serious health problems. Tal put together the two longest official elite level undefeated streaks: 95 games (46 wins and 49 draws from 1973-74) and 86 games (47 wins and 39 draws from 1972-73). Tal's streaks are even more remarkable when one considers his deserved reputation for spectacular attacks and combinations; clearly, Tal was a much more well-rounded and consistent player than many people may realize.
Any list of great chess streaks must mention Jose Raul Capablanca, who went eight years without suffering a loss (1916-1924), including his successful 1921 World Championship match against Emanuel Lasker. However, Capablanca only played 63 games during that span.
Is Caruana's recent performance a sign that he is poised to become World Champion? It will be interesting to see if Caruana is able to dethrone Magnus Carlsen, the highest rated chess player of all-time.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Garry Kasparov on the Future of Chess
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov retained the title of FIDE (International Chess Federation) President by a landslide vote of 110 national delegates to 61 over former World Chess Champion (1985-2000) Garry Kasparov. Kasparov ran on a reformist platform aiming to end the corruption and waste that has characterized Ilyumzhinov's reign. Ilyumzhinov's victory is not good for chess; while Ilyumzhinov passionately loves the game, his outlandish ideas (including but not limited to his publicly expressed thought that chess was brought to Earth by aliens and that he has personally visited the aliens' spaceships) and his shameful allegiances with dictatorial/tyrannical regimes do not bode well for the sport, art and science of chess. It is not surprising that Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin was among the first to heartily congratulate Ilyumzhinov.
Kasparov's fiery statement after the election, titled The Future of Chess, not FIDE, outlines why Kasparov believes that he lost the election and what he thinks should be done in the future to promote chess. Here are some excerpts:
My campaign was about expanding the horizons of the chess and securing its future, our future, in a world with ever-increasing competition for our attention. My themes were bringing sponsorship, education initiatives, and new technology into the game and empowering the national federations. I do not for one moment believe that this election result indicates a problem with this platform, or with the exemplary individuals on my ticket, or with our many successful activities. The sad conclusion is that working hard and having big ideas and investing millions of dollars for the global development of chess all has very little to do with winning a FIDE election today. It was this disastrous situation that my team and I set out to change...
I faced three main challenges in this campaign. First was the FIDE machinery, the abuse of power that made votes disappear and turned commissions into puppets. This was not a surprise, but I believed at the start that I had enough resources to overcome it and I probably did. There were two other factors I badly underestimated. I anticipated the Kremlin’s involvement but couldn’t imagine its extent or how susceptible Europe would be to it. Nor did I anticipate how resistant even many of the biggest federations are to change. They saw it as a threat and looked for excuses to maintain the status quo.
These last two factors in particular eroded the base I thought I had at the start, a base of anti-Kirsan, anti-corruption, pro-growth federations with democratic traditions and substantial numbers of chess players with interests to protect. Perhaps that base still exists, but it is very small now and nearly every federation is eager to do a little business with Ilyumzhinov’s emissaries come election year. I guaranteed money in exchange for effort and sponsorship in exchange for activity and events. It’s clear that many prefer money with no responsibilities and no activities, regardless of what this means for chess...
It is fitting that the slogan on my posters here in Tromsø was “Kasparov: the future of chess” and not “the future of FIDE.” Eventually, growth and change in the chess world will change FIDE; it is clear that FIDE cannot change itself. More numbers and more effort will be needed at the grassroots level. Lovers of chess must become administrators of chess. I spoke often of building up the base of players to raise up the entire chess world and this is just as true in chess politics. More good people coming in will eventually push more bad people out. You can go and do it! Find a way to fight for chess! People must work in their chess communities and change their federations so that our great game has the representation it deserves.
My thanks again to all my team and supporters, and to our excellent hosts of the last two weeks here in Norway. The summer sun never sets in Tromsø and the sun will never set on the game of chess.
The delegates who voted for Ilyumzhinov because they were swayed by bribes and/or cowed by fear should be ashamed. If a person as brilliant, charismatic and well-connected as Garry Kasparov cannot even come close to unseating Ilyumzhinov then it seems like Ilyumzhinov will stay in power for a long time.
Kasparov's fiery statement after the election, titled The Future of Chess, not FIDE, outlines why Kasparov believes that he lost the election and what he thinks should be done in the future to promote chess. Here are some excerpts:
My campaign was about expanding the horizons of the chess and securing its future, our future, in a world with ever-increasing competition for our attention. My themes were bringing sponsorship, education initiatives, and new technology into the game and empowering the national federations. I do not for one moment believe that this election result indicates a problem with this platform, or with the exemplary individuals on my ticket, or with our many successful activities. The sad conclusion is that working hard and having big ideas and investing millions of dollars for the global development of chess all has very little to do with winning a FIDE election today. It was this disastrous situation that my team and I set out to change...
I faced three main challenges in this campaign. First was the FIDE machinery, the abuse of power that made votes disappear and turned commissions into puppets. This was not a surprise, but I believed at the start that I had enough resources to overcome it and I probably did. There were two other factors I badly underestimated. I anticipated the Kremlin’s involvement but couldn’t imagine its extent or how susceptible Europe would be to it. Nor did I anticipate how resistant even many of the biggest federations are to change. They saw it as a threat and looked for excuses to maintain the status quo.
These last two factors in particular eroded the base I thought I had at the start, a base of anti-Kirsan, anti-corruption, pro-growth federations with democratic traditions and substantial numbers of chess players with interests to protect. Perhaps that base still exists, but it is very small now and nearly every federation is eager to do a little business with Ilyumzhinov’s emissaries come election year. I guaranteed money in exchange for effort and sponsorship in exchange for activity and events. It’s clear that many prefer money with no responsibilities and no activities, regardless of what this means for chess...
It is fitting that the slogan on my posters here in Tromsø was “Kasparov: the future of chess” and not “the future of FIDE.” Eventually, growth and change in the chess world will change FIDE; it is clear that FIDE cannot change itself. More numbers and more effort will be needed at the grassroots level. Lovers of chess must become administrators of chess. I spoke often of building up the base of players to raise up the entire chess world and this is just as true in chess politics. More good people coming in will eventually push more bad people out. You can go and do it! Find a way to fight for chess! People must work in their chess communities and change their federations so that our great game has the representation it deserves.
My thanks again to all my team and supporters, and to our excellent hosts of the last two weeks here in Norway. The summer sun never sets in Tromsø and the sun will never set on the game of chess.
The delegates who voted for Ilyumzhinov because they were swayed by bribes and/or cowed by fear should be ashamed. If a person as brilliant, charismatic and well-connected as Garry Kasparov cannot even come close to unseating Ilyumzhinov then it seems like Ilyumzhinov will stay in power for a long time.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Chess as Art, Chess as Violent Sport, Part II
In Chess as Art, Chess as Violent Sport, I declared, "It is not accidental that top level chess is dominated by young players;
chess is very strenuous and thus energy and physical conditioning often
outweigh the value of accumulated experience/wisdom." The recent deaths of two players at the biennial Chess Olympiad (hosted this year by Tromso, Norway) further highlight the physically demanding nature of chess.
In Why Chess is Really an Extreme Sport, Stephen Moss details why chess tournaments are so much more demanding than the general public may realize:
At the Olympiad, participants were playing a game a day over a fortnight--11 rounds with just a couple of rest days on which to recuperate. For up to seven hours a day, they would be sitting at the board trying to kill--metaphorically speaking--their opponent, because this is the ultimate game of kill or be killed. In some positions, you can reach a point where both sides are simultaneously within a single move of checkmating the other. One false step and you will have lost. This imposes enormous pressure on players.
These days, some top players use psychologists to help them deal with this stress. They are also paying increasing attention to diet and fitness. I was staying in the same hotel as many of the world’s top players during the great annual tournament at Wijk aan Zee on the Dutch coast in January, and was struck by the regime adopted by Levon Aronian, the Armenian-born world number two, who started each day with a run followed by a healthy breakfast.
After listing the poor health habits that contributed to the early demise of some of the former Soviet Union's great chess players and the equally poor health habits typical of the average club level player, Moss concludes:
So next time someone suggests a nice, quiet game of chess, or paints it as an intellectual pursuit played by wimps, tell them they’ve got it all wrong: this is a fight to the finish played in the tensest of circumstances by two players who are physically and mentally living on the edge. We all need to get fitter to play this demanding game, and society should recognise it for what it is--a sport as challenging, dramatic and exciting as any other. Such recognition would be a tribute of sorts to the two players who sadly played their final games in Tromso.
In Why Chess is Really an Extreme Sport, Stephen Moss details why chess tournaments are so much more demanding than the general public may realize:
At the Olympiad, participants were playing a game a day over a fortnight--11 rounds with just a couple of rest days on which to recuperate. For up to seven hours a day, they would be sitting at the board trying to kill--metaphorically speaking--their opponent, because this is the ultimate game of kill or be killed. In some positions, you can reach a point where both sides are simultaneously within a single move of checkmating the other. One false step and you will have lost. This imposes enormous pressure on players.
These days, some top players use psychologists to help them deal with this stress. They are also paying increasing attention to diet and fitness. I was staying in the same hotel as many of the world’s top players during the great annual tournament at Wijk aan Zee on the Dutch coast in January, and was struck by the regime adopted by Levon Aronian, the Armenian-born world number two, who started each day with a run followed by a healthy breakfast.
After listing the poor health habits that contributed to the early demise of some of the former Soviet Union's great chess players and the equally poor health habits typical of the average club level player, Moss concludes:
So next time someone suggests a nice, quiet game of chess, or paints it as an intellectual pursuit played by wimps, tell them they’ve got it all wrong: this is a fight to the finish played in the tensest of circumstances by two players who are physically and mentally living on the edge. We all need to get fitter to play this demanding game, and society should recognise it for what it is--a sport as challenging, dramatic and exciting as any other. Such recognition would be a tribute of sorts to the two players who sadly played their final games in Tromso.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Frank Thomas Did it the Right Way
PED users defiled MLB's record book but some statistics and records still matter; it is important to recognize and honor the select group of great players who battled temptation--and went head to head physically with players who used illegal drugs to obtain a competitive advantage--during MLB's "Steroid Era". Frank Thomas not only stayed clean during his outstanding 19 year MLB career but he never hesitated to speak out against the cheaters, even when it was unpopular to do so. After Thomas hit his 500th career home run, I explained that Thomas had rightfully earned Hall of Fame status even before that signature blast.
Thomas finished his career with a .301 batting average, a .419 on base percentage and a .555 slugging percentage. Babe Ruth is the only major leaguer with at least 10,000 plate appearances who surpassed Thomas in all three of those categories. Ruth, Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx and Willie Mays are the only clean players who exceeded Thomas in both batting average and career home runs (521)*. Thomas is the only player who compiled a streak of seven straight seasons with at least a .300 average, 100 walks, 100 runs, 100 RBI and 20 home runs.
The Baseball Hall of Fame voters selected Thomas in his first year of eligibility and on Sunday "The Big Hurt" joined Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Joe Torre, Bobby Cox and Tony LaRussa in the Hall of Fame Class of 2014. Thomas' Hall of Fame Induction Speech overflows with gratitude for the many relatives, friends, teammates and coaches who shaped his development as a man and as a baseball player. Thomas concluded with a simple, powerful statement: "To all you kids out there, just remember one thing from today. There are no shortcuts to success. Hard work, dedication, commitment, stay true to who you are. God bless you all, and I thank you."
-----
*Manny Ramirez is a PED cheater, so his statistics should be classified as "fiction."
Thomas finished his career with a .301 batting average, a .419 on base percentage and a .555 slugging percentage. Babe Ruth is the only major leaguer with at least 10,000 plate appearances who surpassed Thomas in all three of those categories. Ruth, Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx and Willie Mays are the only clean players who exceeded Thomas in both batting average and career home runs (521)*. Thomas is the only player who compiled a streak of seven straight seasons with at least a .300 average, 100 walks, 100 runs, 100 RBI and 20 home runs.
The Baseball Hall of Fame voters selected Thomas in his first year of eligibility and on Sunday "The Big Hurt" joined Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Joe Torre, Bobby Cox and Tony LaRussa in the Hall of Fame Class of 2014. Thomas' Hall of Fame Induction Speech overflows with gratitude for the many relatives, friends, teammates and coaches who shaped his development as a man and as a baseball player. Thomas concluded with a simple, powerful statement: "To all you kids out there, just remember one thing from today. There are no shortcuts to success. Hard work, dedication, commitment, stay true to who you are. God bless you all, and I thank you."
-----
*Manny Ramirez is a PED cheater, so his statistics should be classified as "fiction."
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Vladimir Kramnik Explains Why He Loves Chess
I am not a huge Vladimir Kramnik fan, primarily because I believe that he dodged a World Championship rematch with Garry Kasparov; I think that Kramnik rightfully expected to lose a potential rematch but it is cowardly and unseemly for an elite player to intentionally avoid facing another elite player. All that being said, Kramnik is a superb chess technician and in a recent interview he shared some fascinating insights about chess in general and his career in particular. Here are some excerpts:
Every top player has his own style of play--like painters. You see a painting and say, okay, this is Modigliani, or Raphael, because you cannot confuse them with anyone else. It's the same with chess, which means it is also an art. Chess players are all slightly different and have their own clear way of seeing chess, and you can see it when you play through their games...
I don't consider myself a genius--seriously, and I am sincere with you, I don't think I am a genius. Of course I am gifted at chess and have quite good analytical capabilities, and certain things where I am better than average. But you don't need to be a genius to be a top chess player. It's about many other qualities, about strength of character and, most importantly, the ability to learn. If you are learning very quickly in certain areas it means you have talent. The ability to learn is what I notice in all top players--but also top musicians and other people of art. In their area they learn in seconds, and that is what is called talent.
For me, personally, a beautiful game of chess is a game where everything was very logical, very well built and performed, from the beginning to the end. That is the highest definition of mastery in chess. When millimeter to millimeter everything is perfect. So for me it is perfection. For many other players it's more imagination, sometimes strange and even wrong decisions, something absurd or abstract. But I am more a classicist in chess, and also in art, where I like classical art of the 17th century. I like the beauty and the purity of the game.
Compared to life chess is very strict. In life you can be lucky, you can be born in a very rich family, you can do crazy things and still get away with it. But in chess you will not--you are going to lose. In chess you have to be very disciplined in your thinking. There are a lot of things in chess that are similar to life: you have to understand that sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of something to get other advantages, you have to see the whole board and the whole picture, otherwise you will never be a good chess player. In life it is also similar.
...I remember when I played my World Championship match in 2000 against Garry Kasparov, which took around three weeks--we played sixteen games, every second day--I think I lost ten kilos during the match, without being on a diet or anything. It was just very energy consuming. That is why getting older is not a plus for chess players, because physically you have less energy when you are forty than when you are twenty. It is an issue when you are playing young opponents. I am 38 and a kind of veteran in chess, and I know that playing young opponents I am giving them a certain handicap in a physical sense. On the other hand I have experience, which is helpful, and maybe a little stronger character...
I am not a typical chess player, not a typical sportsman--in fact I am quite surprised that I managed to achieve quite a lot in chess, because I am not a sportsman inside. I don't care about competing, about being the best. For me it is never personal, a game of chess. Most of them--Magnus, Garry, Karpov-- they are crazy about winning in anything they do, even if they play cards or whatever. I really never care that much, in tennis or football--I just enjoy playing. Of course in chess I care about winning, but it is not a goal, it's not a complete must. I was never fixated on the result. That is very unusual for chess. Most of the players are very determined to win. My main motivation is to do my best, to do something which is on the edge of my limits.
When I got a chance to play Kasparov in the World Championship match for me it was a challenge, the highest possible challenge. He was not only the best player at the time, he was also on top of his rating, really at the complete top of his career. That was for me a challenge, and that I managed to win was for me unexpected. I knew I could do it but I was not sure, but this is probably why I managed to do it, because it forced me to give everything. It was not about winning, so much, but rather a challenge. What is important for me is the inside challenge. That is my way of life, of playing chess, and it will probably be with me forever, I guess.
Every top player has his own style of play--like painters. You see a painting and say, okay, this is Modigliani, or Raphael, because you cannot confuse them with anyone else. It's the same with chess, which means it is also an art. Chess players are all slightly different and have their own clear way of seeing chess, and you can see it when you play through their games...
I don't consider myself a genius--seriously, and I am sincere with you, I don't think I am a genius. Of course I am gifted at chess and have quite good analytical capabilities, and certain things where I am better than average. But you don't need to be a genius to be a top chess player. It's about many other qualities, about strength of character and, most importantly, the ability to learn. If you are learning very quickly in certain areas it means you have talent. The ability to learn is what I notice in all top players--but also top musicians and other people of art. In their area they learn in seconds, and that is what is called talent.
For me, personally, a beautiful game of chess is a game where everything was very logical, very well built and performed, from the beginning to the end. That is the highest definition of mastery in chess. When millimeter to millimeter everything is perfect. So for me it is perfection. For many other players it's more imagination, sometimes strange and even wrong decisions, something absurd or abstract. But I am more a classicist in chess, and also in art, where I like classical art of the 17th century. I like the beauty and the purity of the game.
Compared to life chess is very strict. In life you can be lucky, you can be born in a very rich family, you can do crazy things and still get away with it. But in chess you will not--you are going to lose. In chess you have to be very disciplined in your thinking. There are a lot of things in chess that are similar to life: you have to understand that sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of something to get other advantages, you have to see the whole board and the whole picture, otherwise you will never be a good chess player. In life it is also similar.
...I remember when I played my World Championship match in 2000 against Garry Kasparov, which took around three weeks--we played sixteen games, every second day--I think I lost ten kilos during the match, without being on a diet or anything. It was just very energy consuming. That is why getting older is not a plus for chess players, because physically you have less energy when you are forty than when you are twenty. It is an issue when you are playing young opponents. I am 38 and a kind of veteran in chess, and I know that playing young opponents I am giving them a certain handicap in a physical sense. On the other hand I have experience, which is helpful, and maybe a little stronger character...
I am not a typical chess player, not a typical sportsman--in fact I am quite surprised that I managed to achieve quite a lot in chess, because I am not a sportsman inside. I don't care about competing, about being the best. For me it is never personal, a game of chess. Most of them--Magnus, Garry, Karpov-- they are crazy about winning in anything they do, even if they play cards or whatever. I really never care that much, in tennis or football--I just enjoy playing. Of course in chess I care about winning, but it is not a goal, it's not a complete must. I was never fixated on the result. That is very unusual for chess. Most of the players are very determined to win. My main motivation is to do my best, to do something which is on the edge of my limits.
When I got a chance to play Kasparov in the World Championship match for me it was a challenge, the highest possible challenge. He was not only the best player at the time, he was also on top of his rating, really at the complete top of his career. That was for me a challenge, and that I managed to win was for me unexpected. I knew I could do it but I was not sure, but this is probably why I managed to do it, because it forced me to give everything. It was not about winning, so much, but rather a challenge. What is important for me is the inside challenge. That is my way of life, of playing chess, and it will probably be with me forever, I guess.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Howard Cosell: Often Imitated, Never Duplicated
Only Howard Cosell could summarize a man as complex and multifaceted as Howard Cosell: "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a showoff. I have been called all of these. Of course, I am." Cosell was also something else: "a transcendent figure in sports journalism." That sentence sounds like something Cosell would have said about himself but it actually appears as the subheading for William Nack's 1995 Howard Cosell obituary.
When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, Cosell was the most famous and most controversial sports broadcaster in the world. He was often imitated--everyone tried to parody his distinctive delivery: "This is Howard Cosell, Speaking of Sports"--but never duplicated; nearly two decades after his passing, no national sports media figure has come close to matching Cosell's depth of knowledge or his passion for speaking truth to power about unpopular athletes and unpopular causes. Nack describes Cosell as "the gaudiest, smartest and most entertaining and unforgettable television broadcaster in the history of sports--a superb reporter who worked harder and asked better questions than anyone else who'd ever worn earphones."
Many people remember how Cosell's voice sounded but how many people remember what he stood for and what he said? Nack reminds anyone who may have forgotten just how outspoken Cosell was:
Unlike his buttoned-down peers, who ducked social issues and lied at the first whiff of controversy, Cosell waded into every major battle of his time, cutting his way against the grain. He allied himself with Curt Flood in the player's challenge to baseball's hoary reserve clause, and he championed Muhammad Ali in his fight against the draft, setting fire to the national shirt by insisting on calling Ali by his Muslim name. Many of his pen pals remained anonymous when they addressed him "You nigger-loving Jew bastard...."
Few sportswriters and sportscasters are blessed to have the national platform that Cosell did and even fewer have used that platform as a force for good instead of just a means of self-aggrandizement. The prominent TV networks, magazines and websites that cover pro basketball have elevated many commentators and so-called experts to national prominence but who among those well-paid commentators and so-called experts lobbied for the Hall of Fame candidacies of forgotten ABA players like Artis Gilmore, Mel Daniels and Roger Brown? Ted Green struggled to get funding for his heartfelt Roger Brown documentary. ESPN's 30 for 30 series is outstanding but why did the network not want to touch the Roger Brown story? Might doing so have offended the NBA? Howard Cosell never cared who he offended; he just spoke the truth.
Cosell wrote and spoke eloquently and he did not shy away from controversy; no individual or organization has stepped up to fill the void created by Cosell's absence. Even Sports Illustrated, one of the few mainstream outlets where top notch sports journalism can still occasionally be found, often features forgettable, lazily constructed articles; the magazine sometimes includes first rate writing but one has to wade through a lot of chaff to find the wheat--and SI is better than any of its competitors. I will read anything written by the outstanding Gary Smith but his work only appears in print sporadically; during Cosell's prime, he was writing and/or talking on a daily basis, offering intelligent commentary about a wide range of subjects. Rick Reilly has the necessary writing chops to be a powerful influence--and he has penned some incredibly moving articles--but now he seems too comfortable cashing ESPN's checks to focus on producing a steady stream of great writing.
Cosell was far from perfect, as he noted in the self-assessment cited above. He often spoke bluntly (though truthfully) about the shortcomings of some of his co-workers. He drank a lot and could be unpleasant when he was inebriated; Nack begins his piece by recounting one such occasion, noting that Cosell's wife Emmy settled him down by declaring, "Howard, shut up! Nobody cares."
Nack concludes:
Cosell was too much of an original to leave heirs, and the landscape of broadcast journalism that he left on Sunday looks much the way he found it 35 years ago. Once again the waves are filled with talking heads and apologists, with hometown cheerleaders and mindless drones. No one is asking the questions that he asked. And Emmy was right--nobody cares.
***************************************
Here is a 1991 ESPN special featuring Cosell being interviewed by Robert Lipsyte:
Howard Cosell: His Life and Times
When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, Cosell was the most famous and most controversial sports broadcaster in the world. He was often imitated--everyone tried to parody his distinctive delivery: "This is Howard Cosell, Speaking of Sports"--but never duplicated; nearly two decades after his passing, no national sports media figure has come close to matching Cosell's depth of knowledge or his passion for speaking truth to power about unpopular athletes and unpopular causes. Nack describes Cosell as "the gaudiest, smartest and most entertaining and unforgettable television broadcaster in the history of sports--a superb reporter who worked harder and asked better questions than anyone else who'd ever worn earphones."
Many people remember how Cosell's voice sounded but how many people remember what he stood for and what he said? Nack reminds anyone who may have forgotten just how outspoken Cosell was:
Unlike his buttoned-down peers, who ducked social issues and lied at the first whiff of controversy, Cosell waded into every major battle of his time, cutting his way against the grain. He allied himself with Curt Flood in the player's challenge to baseball's hoary reserve clause, and he championed Muhammad Ali in his fight against the draft, setting fire to the national shirt by insisting on calling Ali by his Muslim name. Many of his pen pals remained anonymous when they addressed him "You nigger-loving Jew bastard...."
Few sportswriters and sportscasters are blessed to have the national platform that Cosell did and even fewer have used that platform as a force for good instead of just a means of self-aggrandizement. The prominent TV networks, magazines and websites that cover pro basketball have elevated many commentators and so-called experts to national prominence but who among those well-paid commentators and so-called experts lobbied for the Hall of Fame candidacies of forgotten ABA players like Artis Gilmore, Mel Daniels and Roger Brown? Ted Green struggled to get funding for his heartfelt Roger Brown documentary. ESPN's 30 for 30 series is outstanding but why did the network not want to touch the Roger Brown story? Might doing so have offended the NBA? Howard Cosell never cared who he offended; he just spoke the truth.
Cosell wrote and spoke eloquently and he did not shy away from controversy; no individual or organization has stepped up to fill the void created by Cosell's absence. Even Sports Illustrated, one of the few mainstream outlets where top notch sports journalism can still occasionally be found, often features forgettable, lazily constructed articles; the magazine sometimes includes first rate writing but one has to wade through a lot of chaff to find the wheat--and SI is better than any of its competitors. I will read anything written by the outstanding Gary Smith but his work only appears in print sporadically; during Cosell's prime, he was writing and/or talking on a daily basis, offering intelligent commentary about a wide range of subjects. Rick Reilly has the necessary writing chops to be a powerful influence--and he has penned some incredibly moving articles--but now he seems too comfortable cashing ESPN's checks to focus on producing a steady stream of great writing.
Cosell was far from perfect, as he noted in the self-assessment cited above. He often spoke bluntly (though truthfully) about the shortcomings of some of his co-workers. He drank a lot and could be unpleasant when he was inebriated; Nack begins his piece by recounting one such occasion, noting that Cosell's wife Emmy settled him down by declaring, "Howard, shut up! Nobody cares."
Nack concludes:
Cosell was too much of an original to leave heirs, and the landscape of broadcast journalism that he left on Sunday looks much the way he found it 35 years ago. Once again the waves are filled with talking heads and apologists, with hometown cheerleaders and mindless drones. No one is asking the questions that he asked. And Emmy was right--nobody cares.
***************************************
Here is a 1991 ESPN special featuring Cosell being interviewed by Robert Lipsyte:
Howard Cosell: His Life and Times
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Comparing the Greatest Sports Dynasties
The December 9, 2013 issue of Autoweek contains an article by Al Pearce titled "No End in Sight" (an abridged version can be found here); Jimmie Johnson had just claimed his sixth NASCAR Sprint Cup Series title in his 12th full season on the circuit, placing him one behind record holders Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt. Petty considers Johnson a lock to win at least eight crowns and would not be surprised if Johnson pushes the standard to 10. Although Johnson receives most of the glory, racing is a team sport and the success of Rick Hendrick Motorsports with Johnson behind the wheel and Chad Knaus serving as crew chief raises an intriguing question: where does this accomplishment rank in the pantheon of great sports dynasties?
Hendrick has actually won 11 Sprint Cup Series titles overall--with Jeff Gordon serving as the driver for four of them and Terry Labonte capturing the other one--and a sidebar to Pearce's article (not included in the online version) notes that Hendrick is tied with the NHL's Detroit Red Wings and MLB's St. Louis Cardinals for the seventh most championships won by a professional sports organization. The leaders are the New York Yankees (27 World Series championships), the Montreal Canadiens (24 Stanley Cups), the Boston Celtics (17 NBA titles), the Los Angeles Lakers (16 NBA titles), the Toronto Maple Leafs (13 Stanley Cups) and the Green Bay Packers (13 NFL titles).
Autoweek notes that Hendrick has captured 11 championships in 30 seasons, a .367 winning percentage that is the best in American sports history, ahead of the Celtics (17/67, a .254 winning percentage), the Canadiens (24/95, a .253 winning percentage) and the Yankees (27/113, a .239 winning percentage). Hendrick has been incredibly dominant in the past two decades, winning 11 of 19 championships (.579).
Autoweek lists some of the "Best of the Best" sports dynasties without ranking them:
Boston Celtics of the late 1950s/early 1960s (nine NBA championships in a 10 year span), Michael Schumacher (five straight Formula I titles and a record seven titles overall), Los Angeles Lakers (five NBA championships in the 1980s), Chicago Bulls (six NBA championships in eight years during the 1990s), Pittsburgh Steelers (four Super Bowl wins in a six season span during the 1970s), John Force (16 NHRA Top Fuel championships in 24 years as a driver, 18 NHRA championships as a team owner), New York Yankees of the late 1940s/early 1950s (six World Series wins in seven years), Montreal Canadiens (five straight Stanley Cup wins in the 1950s), UCLA (10 NCAA basketball championships in a 12 year span in the 1960s/1970s), Jack Nicklaus (18 pro golf major wins), Tiger Woods (14 pro golf major wins), Dario Franchitti (four IndyCar titles in five seasons), Sebastien Vettel (four straight Formula I titles, 2010-13), Sebastien Loeb (nine consecutive World Rally Championships, 2004-12), A.J. Foyt (seven IndyCar titles, the most all-time), Richard Petty/Dale Earnhardt (seven NASCAR titles each).
Considering the source, it is not surprising that eight of the 17 dynasties involve some form of auto racing but overall that list is a good one. If individual athletes like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods are going to be mentioned, though, then Bjorn Borg deserves consideration; when Borg retired he held the records for most Wimbledon wins (five), most consecutive Wimbledon wins (five), most French Open wins (six) and most consecutive years with at least one Grand Slam win (eight). Borg still holds the record for best Grand Slam winning percentage (.407, 11 wins in 27 appearances). Even though some of Borg's records have been surpassed by various players, no player in tennis history has been dominant enough to hold all of those records at the same time the way that Borg did.
Objectively ranking the aforementioned dynasties is an impossible task; it is difficult enough to rank the greatest players of all-time in one sport, let alone compare athletes and teams from various generations and vastly different sports. I agree with Pearce, though, that the best of the best have a special quality about them:
Elite competitors, like newly minted six-time NASCAR Sprint Cup Series champion Jimmie Johnson, have it. They always have, and they always will. No worthy champion achieves anything without it.
Michael Jordan had it during those magical years with the Chicago Bulls. Tiger Woods had it before foolishly throwing it away. The Boston Celtics and Arnold Palmer and "Mr. October" Reggie Jackson had it. "I am the greatest" Muhammad Ali had it. So did Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky. And, don't laugh, but Terry Bradshaw had it, too.
It's an indefinable gene that carries the day and elevates an athlete. It separates truly great ones from those who think they're great or merely think about being great.
"It" is a powerful combination of talent, work ethic, confidence and will power. Someone once said of Jack Nicklaus that he knew he was the best, his opponents knew that he was the best and he knew that they knew. Ranking the great sports dynasties is impossible but it is clear that they all had that type of dominance, an expectation of victory that inspired them and that inspired fear/resignation in even the staunchest opponents.
Hendrick has actually won 11 Sprint Cup Series titles overall--with Jeff Gordon serving as the driver for four of them and Terry Labonte capturing the other one--and a sidebar to Pearce's article (not included in the online version) notes that Hendrick is tied with the NHL's Detroit Red Wings and MLB's St. Louis Cardinals for the seventh most championships won by a professional sports organization. The leaders are the New York Yankees (27 World Series championships), the Montreal Canadiens (24 Stanley Cups), the Boston Celtics (17 NBA titles), the Los Angeles Lakers (16 NBA titles), the Toronto Maple Leafs (13 Stanley Cups) and the Green Bay Packers (13 NFL titles).
Autoweek notes that Hendrick has captured 11 championships in 30 seasons, a .367 winning percentage that is the best in American sports history, ahead of the Celtics (17/67, a .254 winning percentage), the Canadiens (24/95, a .253 winning percentage) and the Yankees (27/113, a .239 winning percentage). Hendrick has been incredibly dominant in the past two decades, winning 11 of 19 championships (.579).
Autoweek lists some of the "Best of the Best" sports dynasties without ranking them:
Boston Celtics of the late 1950s/early 1960s (nine NBA championships in a 10 year span), Michael Schumacher (five straight Formula I titles and a record seven titles overall), Los Angeles Lakers (five NBA championships in the 1980s), Chicago Bulls (six NBA championships in eight years during the 1990s), Pittsburgh Steelers (four Super Bowl wins in a six season span during the 1970s), John Force (16 NHRA Top Fuel championships in 24 years as a driver, 18 NHRA championships as a team owner), New York Yankees of the late 1940s/early 1950s (six World Series wins in seven years), Montreal Canadiens (five straight Stanley Cup wins in the 1950s), UCLA (10 NCAA basketball championships in a 12 year span in the 1960s/1970s), Jack Nicklaus (18 pro golf major wins), Tiger Woods (14 pro golf major wins), Dario Franchitti (four IndyCar titles in five seasons), Sebastien Vettel (four straight Formula I titles, 2010-13), Sebastien Loeb (nine consecutive World Rally Championships, 2004-12), A.J. Foyt (seven IndyCar titles, the most all-time), Richard Petty/Dale Earnhardt (seven NASCAR titles each).
Considering the source, it is not surprising that eight of the 17 dynasties involve some form of auto racing but overall that list is a good one. If individual athletes like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods are going to be mentioned, though, then Bjorn Borg deserves consideration; when Borg retired he held the records for most Wimbledon wins (five), most consecutive Wimbledon wins (five), most French Open wins (six) and most consecutive years with at least one Grand Slam win (eight). Borg still holds the record for best Grand Slam winning percentage (.407, 11 wins in 27 appearances). Even though some of Borg's records have been surpassed by various players, no player in tennis history has been dominant enough to hold all of those records at the same time the way that Borg did.
Objectively ranking the aforementioned dynasties is an impossible task; it is difficult enough to rank the greatest players of all-time in one sport, let alone compare athletes and teams from various generations and vastly different sports. I agree with Pearce, though, that the best of the best have a special quality about them:
Elite competitors, like newly minted six-time NASCAR Sprint Cup Series champion Jimmie Johnson, have it. They always have, and they always will. No worthy champion achieves anything without it.
Michael Jordan had it during those magical years with the Chicago Bulls. Tiger Woods had it before foolishly throwing it away. The Boston Celtics and Arnold Palmer and "Mr. October" Reggie Jackson had it. "I am the greatest" Muhammad Ali had it. So did Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky. And, don't laugh, but Terry Bradshaw had it, too.
It's an indefinable gene that carries the day and elevates an athlete. It separates truly great ones from those who think they're great or merely think about being great.
"It" is a powerful combination of talent, work ethic, confidence and will power. Someone once said of Jack Nicklaus that he knew he was the best, his opponents knew that he was the best and he knew that they knew. Ranking the great sports dynasties is impossible but it is clear that they all had that type of dominance, an expectation of victory that inspired them and that inspired fear/resignation in even the staunchest opponents.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Anand Shows That He is not the Retiring Kind
After Viswanathan Anand lost his World Chess Championship title to Magnus Carlsen, some commentators speculated that Anand might retire from top level chess. The 44 year old Anand had slipped to eighth in the world chess rankings and it seemed like he did not have the necessary energy and/or motivation to seriously challenge the 23 year old Carlsen. Anand's tournament record in the past few years has been less than stellar and prior to losing to Carlsen he had only narrowly fought off past his prime World Championship challenger Boris Gelfand. Levon Aronian, the 31 year old second ranked player in the world, seemed poised to emerge from the eight player Candidates Tournament to battle against Carlsen.
However, a funny thing has happened on the road to Anand's retirement/Aronian's coronation: Anand has turned back the clock to produce three sizzling victories, a 6.5 score and a 2883 performance rating after 10 rounds in the Candidates Tournament, while Aronian is in second place with a 5.5 score. Anand scored 1.5/2 in his head to head encounters with Aronian and there are just four rounds left in the double round robin event, so--barring a total collapse--Anand will surprise the chess world and earn the right to reclaim the World Chess Championship.
Anand is not be as consistently dominant in tournaments as he used to be but he is a crafty veteran of World Championship play--winning the title in more different formats than any other player--and it is inspiring to watch an "older" player rise to the occasion against the world's elite. If Anand finishes off the Candidates Tournament in style and gets a second opportunity face Carlsen in the World Chess Championship it will be fascinating to see how Anand adjusts his approach; the first time around, it seemed like Anand failed in at least three regards: (1) his opening preparation did not yield much, (2) he lacked the confidence to go for the kill on the rare occasions when he had a potential opportunity to do so and (3) during long games he clearly suffered from mental and/or physical fatigue, resulting in disastrous blunders. During the Candidates Tournament, Anand has demonstrated that he can still get the best of top notch players like Aronian and former World Champions Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov--but can Anand defeat a much younger foe who seems to enjoy psychological and physical advantages against him?
Carlsen is not only the World Chess Champion and the highest rated chess player in the world but he is also the highest rated chess player ever. Just qualifying to challenge Carlsen will be quite a feat for Anand but if Anand dethrones the man who at least some people believe to be the greatest chess player of all time that will be the biggest achievement of his already highly decorated career. Anand would be a heavy underdog against Carlsen--and he did not manage to post even one win in their previous match--but he was not considered a serious contender in the Candidates Tournament until he raced out into the lead and never looked back.
However, a funny thing has happened on the road to Anand's retirement/Aronian's coronation: Anand has turned back the clock to produce three sizzling victories, a 6.5 score and a 2883 performance rating after 10 rounds in the Candidates Tournament, while Aronian is in second place with a 5.5 score. Anand scored 1.5/2 in his head to head encounters with Aronian and there are just four rounds left in the double round robin event, so--barring a total collapse--Anand will surprise the chess world and earn the right to reclaim the World Chess Championship.
Anand is not be as consistently dominant in tournaments as he used to be but he is a crafty veteran of World Championship play--winning the title in more different formats than any other player--and it is inspiring to watch an "older" player rise to the occasion against the world's elite. If Anand finishes off the Candidates Tournament in style and gets a second opportunity face Carlsen in the World Chess Championship it will be fascinating to see how Anand adjusts his approach; the first time around, it seemed like Anand failed in at least three regards: (1) his opening preparation did not yield much, (2) he lacked the confidence to go for the kill on the rare occasions when he had a potential opportunity to do so and (3) during long games he clearly suffered from mental and/or physical fatigue, resulting in disastrous blunders. During the Candidates Tournament, Anand has demonstrated that he can still get the best of top notch players like Aronian and former World Champions Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov--but can Anand defeat a much younger foe who seems to enjoy psychological and physical advantages against him?
Carlsen is not only the World Chess Champion and the highest rated chess player in the world but he is also the highest rated chess player ever. Just qualifying to challenge Carlsen will be quite a feat for Anand but if Anand dethrones the man who at least some people believe to be the greatest chess player of all time that will be the biggest achievement of his already highly decorated career. Anand would be a heavy underdog against Carlsen--and he did not manage to post even one win in their previous match--but he was not considered a serious contender in the Candidates Tournament until he raced out into the lead and never looked back.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Marv Levy: Champion Without a Ring
It is a paradoxical reality of the sports universe that if one never makes it to the big game one can still be perceived as a winner but if one makes it to the big game repeatedly without winning it then one is generally perceived as a loser. Coach Marv Levy led the Buffalo Bills to an unprecedented four straight Super Bowls (1991-94) and if the Bills had won just one of those games then history would view Levy much more kindly--but the Bills lost all four, including three blowouts plus one game decided on a last second field goal missed by Buffalo kicker Scott Norwood, and thus it is unlikely that Levy will ever get the full credit that he is due.
Rick Telander, a narrative non-fiction master, realized that there is much more to Levy than those four Super Bowl losses; in an October 17, 1994 Sports Illustrated article titled No Joke, Telander explained why Levy is not only a great coach but also a well-rounded human being. Levy possesses the intelligence and determination to succeed in just about any field but the Harvard history major fell in love with football, a decision that did not meet with the immediate approval of his father. When he told Sam Levy what he planned to do, the elder Levy considered the matter in silence before saying simply, "Be a good one."
The stereotypical football coach breathes fire and instills fear but Marv Levy rejected that approach: "I hear sometimes that to be a good coach you have to be mean. I disagree, because the essential quality of a coach is to be a good teacher. Just because my personality is different from, say, Mike Ditka's doesn't mean a thing. What I always say is, 'Plan your work and work your plan.' If you have everything prepared, the rest takes care of itself.'"
After that fourth Super Bowl loss, Levy offered a defiant response when asked if the Bills could make a fifth straight trip to the Super Bowl: "Is our goal to win? No! Our goal is to develop our team, to earn what we get, to learn, to develop unselfish attitudes. If we achieve that, the result is that we'll win."
Those words may sound trite but coaches who have won multiple championships--including Phil Jackson and John Wooden--said very similar things: competing in sports at the highest level is about the process, about doing your work the right way and about having the proper mindset: those things do not guarantee championships but they guarantee that you can look in the mirror and know that you, in the words of Rudyard Kipling, filled "the unforgiving minute/With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run."
Rick Telander, a narrative non-fiction master, realized that there is much more to Levy than those four Super Bowl losses; in an October 17, 1994 Sports Illustrated article titled No Joke, Telander explained why Levy is not only a great coach but also a well-rounded human being. Levy possesses the intelligence and determination to succeed in just about any field but the Harvard history major fell in love with football, a decision that did not meet with the immediate approval of his father. When he told Sam Levy what he planned to do, the elder Levy considered the matter in silence before saying simply, "Be a good one."
The stereotypical football coach breathes fire and instills fear but Marv Levy rejected that approach: "I hear sometimes that to be a good coach you have to be mean. I disagree, because the essential quality of a coach is to be a good teacher. Just because my personality is different from, say, Mike Ditka's doesn't mean a thing. What I always say is, 'Plan your work and work your plan.' If you have everything prepared, the rest takes care of itself.'"
After that fourth Super Bowl loss, Levy offered a defiant response when asked if the Bills could make a fifth straight trip to the Super Bowl: "Is our goal to win? No! Our goal is to develop our team, to earn what we get, to learn, to develop unselfish attitudes. If we achieve that, the result is that we'll win."
Those words may sound trite but coaches who have won multiple championships--including Phil Jackson and John Wooden--said very similar things: competing in sports at the highest level is about the process, about doing your work the right way and about having the proper mindset: those things do not guarantee championships but they guarantee that you can look in the mirror and know that you, in the words of Rudyard Kipling, filled "the unforgiving minute/With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run."
Monday, March 10, 2014
Peter Svidler on the "Mystical Quality" of Chess
Seven-time Russian chess champion Peter Svidler recently was interviewed by Rustam Kasimdzhanov, the 2004 FIDE World Chess Champion; in Part I, Svidler offers a very candid appraisal of his chess career:
I still think I'm primarily a chess player, but the question can perhaps be phrased: "Have I been as much of a chess player as I should have been over the course of my career?" And I think to that the answer is no. But once again, by now that's probably unfixable and I'm probably more of a chess player right now than I was three years ago--so I'm trying to do something about it.
I have been somewhat...relaxed towards my chess career in general over the past decade or so. Who knows what could have happened...but the whole, "what would have happened with him if he'd worked on chess for 12 hours a day," is completely pointless, because I don't see myself working 12 hours a day whatever I do. It's a non-starter. I know of some people who do that, but I can't imagine changes in my life which would lead me to that.
It is fascinating that even someone as accomplished as Svidler believes that he does not have the work ethic or focus possessed by the very greatest chess players. Svidler both recognizes this shortcoming and accepts that it is fruitless to wonder what might have been had he taken a different approach; he knows that it is just not in his nature to have the monomaniacal devotion to the sport displayed by Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen, three World Champions who have each permanently inscribed their names very prominently in chess history. Svidler is well aware that he never came close to reaching their level: "...I will be listed as a bit-player in the era of Kramnik. Maybe not exactly a bit-player, but still--there are people out there who shaped the chess world to a certain degree. I don't see myself as one of those, but I'm a decent player."
Although Svidler failed to establish himself as an all-time chess great, in Part II he explains why chess captivates him (and millions of other people who are spellbound by the beauty, wonder, mystery and horror of chess):
I think it's an incredibly beautiful game. It can bring you a lot of joy if you study it and begin to understand it. You do need to put in some work because the "problem" with chess is that you do need to get past a certain level to begin appreciating just how beautiful it can be...
It has a somewhat mystical quality for me. In its best aspects it's like music or literature. It can create a feeling of wonder and beauty--obviously not every day, but it can. That's the reason I'm still happy I'm playing it because every now and then you create something which makes you think, yeah, that really was something which will remain. It's more than a game--at least I like to think so...
Success and recognition and all those things are important, clearly--who doesn't want those?--but this feeling that you get every now and then that you're completely in control of what you're doing over the board and the pieces listen to you and do what you say… For me that's absolutely fantastic and what I'm searching for--what I'm playing for.
Svidler nailed it: chess provides both a means to express oneself artistically and a way to at least have the illusion of exercising control in a world that often seems very chaotic and unpredictable.
I still think I'm primarily a chess player, but the question can perhaps be phrased: "Have I been as much of a chess player as I should have been over the course of my career?" And I think to that the answer is no. But once again, by now that's probably unfixable and I'm probably more of a chess player right now than I was three years ago--so I'm trying to do something about it.
I have been somewhat...relaxed towards my chess career in general over the past decade or so. Who knows what could have happened...but the whole, "what would have happened with him if he'd worked on chess for 12 hours a day," is completely pointless, because I don't see myself working 12 hours a day whatever I do. It's a non-starter. I know of some people who do that, but I can't imagine changes in my life which would lead me to that.
It is fascinating that even someone as accomplished as Svidler believes that he does not have the work ethic or focus possessed by the very greatest chess players. Svidler both recognizes this shortcoming and accepts that it is fruitless to wonder what might have been had he taken a different approach; he knows that it is just not in his nature to have the monomaniacal devotion to the sport displayed by Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen, three World Champions who have each permanently inscribed their names very prominently in chess history. Svidler is well aware that he never came close to reaching their level: "...I will be listed as a bit-player in the era of Kramnik. Maybe not exactly a bit-player, but still--there are people out there who shaped the chess world to a certain degree. I don't see myself as one of those, but I'm a decent player."
Although Svidler failed to establish himself as an all-time chess great, in Part II he explains why chess captivates him (and millions of other people who are spellbound by the beauty, wonder, mystery and horror of chess):
I think it's an incredibly beautiful game. It can bring you a lot of joy if you study it and begin to understand it. You do need to put in some work because the "problem" with chess is that you do need to get past a certain level to begin appreciating just how beautiful it can be...
It has a somewhat mystical quality for me. In its best aspects it's like music or literature. It can create a feeling of wonder and beauty--obviously not every day, but it can. That's the reason I'm still happy I'm playing it because every now and then you create something which makes you think, yeah, that really was something which will remain. It's more than a game--at least I like to think so...
Success and recognition and all those things are important, clearly--who doesn't want those?--but this feeling that you get every now and then that you're completely in control of what you're doing over the board and the pieces listen to you and do what you say… For me that's absolutely fantastic and what I'm searching for--what I'm playing for.
Svidler nailed it: chess provides both a means to express oneself artistically and a way to at least have the illusion of exercising control in a world that often seems very chaotic and unpredictable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
