Marx, Lenin, Chess!

[Bob]

I was reading a pretty interesting article recently on how communist revolutionaries Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were avid chess players. (snip a chunk of her post)

What I'm trying to say is that I think many leftists feel like outsiders and perhaps were either bullied into playing physical sports against their will as kids or were bullied around by jocks at school (I fall into the latter crowd) and so have negative feelings about those types of games. Think about the outsider syndrome for a minute. Who do leftists typically stand up for? Workers, women, racial, religious, and sexual minorities, the poor, immigrants, and so on. In short, all the more disadvantaged social groups. I do think there's something of an outsider mentality that those politics correspond to. Of course none of this is anywhere near absolute, but it's just an overall tendency I've observed. I know I'm fonder of brain games than the other kind and that there's only so much overlap between the two crowds.

As a chess player, no longer as good as I once was, due to not playing strong players, who also played high school football but not on a good team and yet I love pro and college and even high school football, my take on this is different.

It has nothing to do with Marx globally.

I was first taught to play chess by a Japanese player. Once I got the hang of the game, I beat him more than lost to him. Still a fairly decent player, I was a long ways from a very good player. I studied the game. They say reading good teaching books is a waste of time, but you will never become a super player unless you study great games.

I never thought of Chess the way I thought about playing football.

You being female come to different conclusions vs games played roughly vs games of the mind.

If any of you wish to play very very good chess, I can offer some great books to study. It adds fun to the game to fully understand the opening theory and the middle game theory. Bobby Fischer wrote a book that is plain genius on ending games.

I can't help you be a good football player. My deal in school was to learn the plays and try hard to be tougher than those trying to nail me. I carried the ball and perhaps that is why I feel like that.

[Bob]

I tend to play a war of attrition ... I like to eliminate pawns, knights and queens and get down with Bishops and Rooks ... oh, maybe a pawn or two for the King to hide behind ...

Your competition is weak.

So is Peters.

It is apparent to me that neither of you studied Chess. I don't call knowing how to move pieces, knowing chess.

[exotix]

Your competition is weak.

So is Peters.

It is apparent to me that neither of you studied Chess. I don't call knowing how to move pieces, knowing chess.

I can beat you blindfolded.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
That's a much more recent phenomenon than you seem to realize. It only happened after the economic nonsense of Marxism was abandoned by the white working class and that class was consequently abandoned by the leftist parties.

Not as much as you might think! It mostly just depended on how far to the left you went on the spectrum in the olden days. For example, the Communist Party back in the 1920s and '30s consisted MOSTLY of immigrants and racial minorities and dedicated much of its political efforts to the defense of those groups accordingly. They dedicated entire fronts to these subjects. The Communists and other radical left groups (socialists and anarchists) were also the first to champion the concept of unionizing industrial workers. People don't realize this today, but the industrial workers of that age were thought of and treated much like our low-end service industry workers are today. They composed much of the working poor of that era. The American Federation of Labor resisted moves to try and unionize industrial workers because they saw them as lowly and undeserving. They wanted the labor movement to be an exclusive club only for more "skilled" workers. The radical leftists of the age were more forward-thinking; ahead of even the '30s youth. Generations before the '30s youth created the Congress of Industrial Organization, the socialists and communists had jointly crafted organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to fight for much the same cause, albeit toward more radical final ends. Likewise, you'll find that 20th century communist countries had a lengthy record of leading the world in terms of feminist policies ranging from access to a wide range of career options to the easing of divorce laws to the establishment of legal reproductive rights to the reorientation of sexual politics. Now maybe the more moderate left wouldn't have supported these things and these groups back in the first part of the 20th century, but the radical left often did, and it's radicals who define ideological poles, i.e. what it actually is to be an ideological leftist or rightist. The communist movement was also much quicker than society more broadly and the more moderate political left to embrace gay rights. The Western communist movement had generally done so by the end of the 1970s, where the general populations of Western nations have only started to embrace gay rights in the last decade or so. Again, it's radicals who define political poles and thus the extent to which one is a political leftist or rightist.

Peter wrote:
Once you know what the basics, the rest is thinking 3 steps ahead. Some people just remember entire game moves and use those. I think that is lame.

I joined the chess club in high school because they made everyone join a club and that one sounded the most up my alley. I learned the basics of the game quickly, but never delved into really strategic thinking about it like I should have. Of course I was only fortunate that many of the other people in the chess club were like me and just there because it seemed like the easiest and yet least boring way of passing the mandatory "club" time. There were a lot of other casual players there, so I was able to somehow win about one-third of the games I played even though I understood nothing about serious chess strategy, like thinking multiple turns in advance. I just kind of developed a style around the pieces I liked the most, liking coming up with ways to start moving my knights around as quickly as possible to get at my opponent's back-row pieces while their pawns were still blocking their movement. I didn't really know or especially care what I was doing; I was just passing the time. Now these days, however, I might be more able to get into a game like chess. I have, after all, always enjoyed games that involve a fair dosage of strategic thinking. However, I will say that most of the games I refer to are a little more malleable/customizable than chess. Chess doesn't seem to offer the serious strategist a comparable range of creative options, which makes me fear the prospect of boredom.

[Mister D]

Not as much as you might think! It mostly just depended on how far to the left you went on the spectrum in the olden days. For example, the Communist Party back in the 1920s and '30s consisted MOSTLY of immigrants and racial minorities and dedicated much of its political efforts to the defense of those groups accordingly. They dedicated entire fronts to these subjects. The Communists and other radical left groups (socialists and anarchists) were also the first to champion the concept of unionizing industrial workers. People don't realize this today, but the industrial workers of that age were thought of and treated much like our low-end service industry workers are today. They composed much of the working poor of that era. The American Federation of Labor resisted moves to try and unionize industrial workers because they saw them as lowly and undeserving. They wanted the labor movement to be an exclusive club only for more "skilled" workers. The radical leftists of the age were more forward-thinking; ahead of even the '30s youth. Generations before the '30s youth created the Congress of Industrial Organization, the socialists and communists had jointly crafted organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to fight for much the same cause, albeit toward more radical final ends. Likewise, you'll find that 20th century communist countries had a lengthy record of leading the world in terms of feminist policies ranging from access to a wide range of career options to the easing of divorce laws to the establishment of legal reproductive rights to the reorientation of sexual politics. Now maybe the more moderate left wouldn't have supported these things and these groups back in the first part of the 20th century, but the radical left often did, and it's radicals who define ideological poles, i.e. what it actually is to be an ideological leftist or rightist. The communist movement was also much quicker than society more broadly and the more moderate political left to embrace gay rights. The Western communist movement had generally done so by the end of the 1970s, where the general populations of Western nations have only started to embrace gay rights in the last decade or so. Again, it's radicals who define political poles and thus the extent to which one is a political leftist or rightist.

The bold is true only of the United States. Granted, communist parties were heavily Jewish everywhere at least in terms of leadership. Perhaps that's what you meant by "IMMIGRANT".

Anyway, Polly, the point is that the old objectives of the leftist parties were abandoned before either of us were born. You don't seriously mean to suggest that the current issues of the radical left (racism, gay 'rights', feminism, etc.) were ever more than peripheral when Marxism was relevant (i.e. prior to 1960)? Polly, there is a reason it's called the New Left. The Old Left focused on social class and labor issues. The Left focused primarily on sexual freedom, drugs, and social issues. The reason for that is class war was no longer selling.

[kilgram]

Your competition is weak.

So is Peters.

It is apparent to me that neither of you studied Chess. I don't call knowing how to move pieces, knowing chess.

I played Chess for a while. But in the end I got a little tired and left to play. Even I went to competitions and all that. I was not very good. And I had tendency to make stupid mistakes and I didn't study my games after they were done (a big mistake if you want to improve). Also I was a teenager when I played and left to play.

But I've read that in East Europe, during Communism and post-Communism they gave a lot of importance to Chess and even they had chess education in schools. Is a good form to train the mind, logics, strategy and memory.

[Bob]

I can beat you blindfolded.

I don't know you. I don't play often at all. It takes time to get back in top form. Then you can play blindfolded and I will enjoy whipping you.

By the way, i am, sure you want me to play with a blindfold on.

[Bob]

I played Chess for a while. But in the end I got a little tired and left to play. Even I went to competitions and all that. I was not very good. And I had tendency to make stupid mistakes and I didn't study my games after they were done (a big mistake if you want to improve). Also I was a teenager when I played and left to play.

But I've read that in East Europe, during Communism and post-Communism they gave a lot of importance to Chess and even they had chess education in schools. Is a good form to train the mind, logics, strategy and memory.

Top rank Chess is played a bit different than the poor players believe.

First one must understand chess openings. Do you favor P-K4 or P-Q4. I still use the old style notation so I hope you understand. Do you start with a goal in mind other than just win the game?

Correct study takes hours and hours. You need to understand that the complex game still is a system. Do you know the opponent? How fast can you learn the opponent during early play? Is the opponent moving super fast? If the person moves super fast, if the moves are sound, you must be very careful. The play style is important. Do you know the middle game? How well do you know ending games. We generally see Chess in three parts. It is like many things we do. A race driver has to race and practice to be fast. Tennis pros play a lot and have a full understanding of body position, hitting angles and so forth. Same with golfers or other sports. Chess is a lot more fun once you study some chess teaching books by very good players.

I am studying some books on the Russian game style.

I enjoy a book called Chess Traps by Horowitz and Reinfeld. It opens up your thinking a lot.

[Bob]

Not as much as you might think! It mostly just depended on how far to the left you went on the spectrum in the olden days. For example, the Communist Party back in the 1920s and '30s consisted MOSTLY of immigrants and racial minorities and dedicated much of its political efforts to the defense of those groups accordingly. They dedicated entire fronts to these subjects. The Communists and other radical left groups (socialists and anarchists) were also the first to champion the concept of unionizing industrial workers. People don't realize this today, but the industrial workers of that age were thought of and treated much like our low-end service industry workers are today. They composed much of the working poor of that era. The American Federation of Labor resisted moves to try and unionize industrial workers because they saw them as lowly and undeserving. They wanted the labor movement to be an exclusive club only for more "skilled" workers. The radical leftists of the age were more forward-thinking; ahead of even the '30s youth. Generations before the '30s youth created the Congress of Industrial Organization, the socialists and communists had jointly crafted organizations like the Industrial Workers of the World to fight for much the same cause, albeit toward more radical final ends. Likewise, you'll find that 20th century communist countries had a lengthy record of leading the world in terms of feminist policies ranging from access to a wide range of career options to the easing of divorce laws to the establishment of legal reproductive rights to the reorientation of sexual politics. Now maybe the more moderate left wouldn't have supported these things and these groups back in the first part of the 20th century, but the radical left often did, and it's radicals who define ideological poles, i.e. what it actually is to be an ideological leftist or rightist. The communist movement was also much quicker than society more broadly and the more moderate political left to embrace gay rights. The Western communist movement had generally done so by the end of the 1970s, where the general populations of Western nations have only started to embrace gay rights in the last decade or so. Again, it's radicals who define political poles and thus the extent to which one is a political leftist or rightist.



I joined the chess club in high school because they made everyone join a club and that one sounded the most up my alley. I learned the basics of the game quickly, but never delved into really strategic thinking about it like I should have. Of course I was only fortunate that many of the other people in the chess club were like me and just there because it seemed like the easiest and yet least boring way of passing the mandatory "club" time. There were a lot of other casual players there, so I was able to somehow win about one-third of the games I played even though I understood nothing about serious chess strategy, like thinking multiple turns in advance. I just kind of developed a style around the pieces I liked the most, liking coming up with ways to start moving my knights around as quickly as possible to get at my opponent's back-row pieces while their pawns were still blocking their movement. I didn't really know or especially care what I was doing; I was just passing the time. Now these days, however, I might be more able to get into a game like chess. I have, after all, always enjoyed games that involve a fair dosage of strategic thinking. However, I will say that most of the games I refer to are a little more malleable/customizable than chess. Chess doesn't seem to offer the serious strategist a comparable range of creative options, which makes me fear the prospect of boredom.

Had you seen East Germany when it was it's most powerful, you would not be kind to Communism. Per Jews I personally know who lived under Communism, they were very disliked in the Communist world.

A good book to help you learn Chess is HOW TO THINK AHEAD IN CHESS, by Horowitz and Reinfeld. Those pair are co authors of some very good books. A book I love and use is THE COMPLETE CHESS COURSE, by Reinfeld. Fred understands the game and is a very good teacher.

Learning GOOD Chess is as easy as playing poor chess. It is true if you know a Chess Master who has time and is willing to play you, he or she can teach you a lot.

My first ever chess book was by Nimzowitch and i did not see that book as a very good teacher.

Some players memorize games. This in my opinion is a terrible thing to do. You need to become adept at systems and not merely moves.

Control of the center of the board is very important. Pawns are more important than some think they are.

A well designed opening has a pawn structure that sets you up to win the game. The Queen should NEVER be moved prior to about 10 moves where you set up the center.

A powerful center formation puts you into very good shape. Think of a V shape with pawns backing you up.

[kilgram]

Top rank Chess is played a bit different than the poor players believe.

First one must understand chess openings. Do you favor P-K4 or P-Q4. I still use the old style notation so I hope you understand. Do you start with a goal in mind other than just win the game?

Correct study takes hours and hours. You need to understand that the complex game still is a system. Do you know the opponent? How fast can you learn the opponent during early play? Is the opponent moving super fast? If the person moves super fast, if the moves are sound, you must be very careful. The play style is important. Do you know the middle game? How well do you know ending games. We generally see Chess in three parts. It is like many things we do. A race driver has to race and practice to be fast. Tennis pros play a lot and have a full understanding of body position, hitting angles and so forth. Same with golfers or other sports. Chess is a lot more fun once you study some chess teaching books by very good players.

I am studying some books on the Russian game style.

I enjoy a book called Chess Traps by Horowitz and Reinfeld. It opens up your thinking a lot.

In Spain we didn't use this notation, but I understood it.

Exactly, the openings are very important. I had some Chess books of openings and studied some of them. I usually played opening with P-K4.