It's Friday, I think, and so it must be time for another series of chess-related quotations derived from non-chess centric sources. Please feel free to try and intuit the author of each one. (The answers from the last time 'we' 'played' this game are now in the comments box.)
Some clues: a) went to the same school as Hitler; b) created a detective to rival Our Ron; c) was exiled in Siberia; d) was speaking after losing to a world champion in a simul held in the Strand; and e) was an editor of France Libre. Good luck...
a) 'Let us say that the meaning of a piece is its role in the game. Now let it be decided by lot which of the players gets white before any game of chess begins. To this end one player holds a king in each closed fist while the other chooses one of the two hands at random. Will it be counted as part of the role of the king in chess that it is used to draw lots in this way?'
b) '[M]ost of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly that combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch for ever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see it black on white.'
c) ‘With the ant-heap the respectable race of ants began and with the ant- heap they will probably end, which does the greatest credit to their perseverance and good sense. But man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves the process of the game, not the end of it.’
d) 'What have I learned from this? I have come to the conclusion you need more intelligence for chess than politics. You need to apply yourself every hour of every day to achieve the type of genius he has.'
e) ‘In chess the rivalry of intelligence appears in the purest state.’
d - karl marx
I think Karl died about a hundred years before that simul took place.
I'd say "Ray Keene" but I assume that he must have been asleep by this time.
a) is Wittgenstein
e) Raymond Aron
I'll have pop at Chesterton for (b) and Dostoyevsky for (c) although to be honest, Dostoyevsky could also be (b).
You're on fire today, Justin! a) is Wittgenstein; b) is GKC; c) is Dostoyevsky and e) is Aron. Very good! Just d) to go, then...
I'll try Jeremy Hanley but I think it's probably somebody more prominent. Annoyingly, I can remember the simul concerned, but not who played...
Callaghan might be right, actually. I have a vague and quite likely incorrect memory that it was somebody Labour and essentially retired.
You might want to send that again, the link doesn't work...
Callaghan's correct. As you were.
Oh, and he was talking about Kasparov, btw.
I tried to invite myself to that simul (seeing as for obscure reasons, Oxford United were among the players, represented by a consultation team) but was regrettably turned down.
Now I've read the spoiler, would someone explain it to me?
It doesn't point to the right place. Hop down to Mack's 22 Oct 07 observation (#71).
I met James Callaghan once. He turned up to the Universities Team championship when it was held in Swansea. Can't remember the precise year but would have been 1990 or 1991 I imagine.
Seemed to be a decent bloke.
At first I thought a-e were different clues to the same person! Even after realizing the correct rules, naturally I couldn't get any of them. Since I had no clue of the answers, I focus on the questions.
(a) Wittgenstein just took a huge step down in my estimation, and not because everyone knows you choose pawns so the piece is least likely to show through your fingers.
(b) Hilarious because astute.
(c) Leaves me baffled, I probably don't know enough about ants. I would have thought they were even more process-oriented than chessplayers.
(d) Never heard of James Callaghan. If he is not a politician then he ought to be. You need to apply yourself every hour of every day to achieve the type of genius he has. Like most statements by politicians, this one doesn't bear close inspection.
(e) Unfortunately true for me.
James Callaghan Labour Prime Minister at the end of the seventies. You could argue there has not been a Labour Prime Minister since he left office.
Well one *could* argue that, Jonathan - but IMVHO one would have to be pretty daft to do so for all sorts of reasons.....
(Not that I *really* want to start a political argument right now :-) )
Post a Comment