tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post319375746168160216..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: On Moral QualitiesTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-44459961002901640382013-11-09T13:18:35.810+00:002013-11-09T13:18:35.810+00:00Although I can well believe they exist, I find con...Although I can well believe they exist, I find concepts like character really difficult to work with, and also to articulate why, but here goes. I’m sceptical about saying the winners of a high stakes game did so because they showed character, as they could have won for any of the reasons people win normal stakes games. How do you measure “character”, other than by looking at the results afterwards? Why do you often see people “showing character” sometimes but not others? <br /><br />We could reasonably say that Andy Murray lacked character after 2012 Wimbledon, as he had then lost all five Open finals he had reached. He then won the Olympics’ and his next two Open finals, so why did he suddenly gain character? And the evidence that he did gain character is… that he won those three finals.<br /><br />A penny for others’ thoughts.Adam FFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-22466953281572009362013-11-09T12:49:59.535+00:002013-11-09T12:49:59.535+00:00Oh and Anand's win over Gelfand, of course.Oh and Anand's win over Gelfand, of course.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-60798303604612593872013-11-08T23:55:29.701+00:002013-11-08T23:55:29.701+00:00I suppose so given his record of doing over Topalo...I suppose so given his record of doing over Topalov and Kramnik in the last few years.<br /><br />But there' s not really much matchplay going on at the moment is there, so I don't think the 'title' of best match player in the world really means anything in 2013. Sad to say.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-47699263309983471542013-11-08T20:16:52.549+00:002013-11-08T20:16:52.549+00:00Jon,
If anand won would you agree he is the best m...Jon,<br />If anand won would you agree he is the best match player in the world(rather than a tournament player)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-87399385425924110482013-11-07T21:42:44.013+00:002013-11-07T21:42:44.013+00:00I enjoyed reading the LRB article which is not to ...I enjoyed reading the LRB article which is not to say I agreed with it all. E.g. the inclusion of tennis as one of the sports at which Britain has supposedly got good. More accurate to say that Murray has got good, I think. Admittedly that's better than we've had since who knows when, but not exactly a national improvement.<br /><br /><i>I don’t agree with you about Anand not being the best chesser in the world if he wins this match, either</i><br /><br />Fair enough. I consciously wrote that section in a rather provocative manner, well aware that not everybody would think that way.<br /><br />A matter of opinion, I suppose. I'd say if Anand beats Carlsen over 12 games he'll have deservedly won the match and will have been proved to be the better play this fortnight. I'd even say he deserves to be 'Champion'. Not sure if that's the same thing as being the best in the world though.<br /><br />Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-23305754273121412882013-11-07T16:40:57.288+00:002013-11-07T16:40:57.288+00:00For sure. But what to make of his claim that Brita...For sure. But what to make of his claim that Britain has always had great golfers?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-48249919243406881012013-11-07T15:31:04.751+00:002013-11-07T15:31:04.751+00:00Well, I thought the Markovits piece was a pretty f...Well, I thought the Markovits piece was a pretty fine read, albeit for an LRB audience. The final anecdote, on 'character', was well worth waiting for.David Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-53794799708949806312013-11-07T14:02:47.558+00:002013-11-07T14:02:47.558+00:00I like the London Review of Books a great deal and...I like the London Review of Books a great deal and I've been a subscriber for an unbroken period starting in the previous millenium. They do however have a habit of running pieces about sport written by people who are not obviously expert in the field (even in the sense of being amateur experts, if you follow me). I don't think they would do this (or <i>do</i> do this) when it comes to, say, modern philosophy or medieval literature or ancient history.<br /><br />This doesn't mean this pieces are necessarily bad, nor that this one is, but it does mean that they tend to be a lot more open to basic objections (and elementary errors of fact and interpretation) than most of their other pieces.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-83408609591519834472013-11-07T12:34:50.046+00:002013-11-07T12:34:50.046+00:00It seems to me that friend Markovits is confused. ...It seems to me that friend Markovits is confused. Of course winning isn’t a moral issue. That doesn’t mean that competitive character doesn’t enter into it.<br /><br />I would agree with him if he said that the notion of assigning moral values to particular ways of playing is a foolish one (disregarding actual cheating/gamesmanship/whatever). I find it rather silly when commentators laud ‘the right way to play the game’ or talk of bold tactical decisions as though they were in some way inherently superior to cautious ones.<br /><br />I don’t agree with you about Anand not being the best chesser in the world if he wins this match, either. Ratings don’t mean sh*t, and nor does how big a plus score you can achieve against the 2720 brigade. If you’re better than everybody else, you’re the best, even if some of your rivals are better than the rest of the crowd by a bigger margin than you are. If Anand can come to the table and beat Maggie over twelve games, then he’s the better player. That’s all; that’s how the question is determined. I don’t believe he can, or that he believes he can, or even that at some level he wants to, and that’s why I think Maggie will win. Betting on a new first-tie father to win any contest which requires a year's intense focus is quixotic.<br /><br />But if Anand does win, I’ve no time for this ‘not-the-real-champion’ nonsense, any more than I did when Petrosian was getting slagged off by Heidenfeld.<br />John Coxnoreply@blogger.com