ditzel@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (08/24/83)
Some answers to:
-->"I've always wondered why the site was so important for a chess match. In a
temperature controlled playing room, what does it matter what the outoor
temperature is? "
**It is easier to play in moderate temperature zones then some of the extreme
zones. Playing conditions in international chess have been notoriously *bad*
and Bobby Fischer use to gripe alot about them. Additionally players usually
play 5 to 7 hour games. It's fine to play in a temperature controlled
atmosphere but by the end of the game when the player is exhausted and walks out
of that environment and hits temperatures around 100 it does little good
for him. Remember most of these guys are in there 40s to 60s and not always in
the best of health. Usually choice of a site is important for simple *health*
reasons as well as psychological ones. Karpov languishes toward the end of
chess matches. He is physically a very frail person with a weak energy
reserves. On more than one occasion he has lapsed into losing streaks because
of a lack of stamina/endurance. Add to this a hostile outside environment and
life would become hell for the fellow. And he's young! (Around 30 I believe)
Also just getting a temperature controlled room that is large enough to
seat a small audience is not an easy matter in some of the more obscure
places of the world. Lots of complaints when a number of tournaments
where held in the Phillipines. The temperatures just got to alot of the
players even though game conditions were pretty good.
-->"Why does the cold war posture of the hosting country affect
the playing of a game of chess within its boundaries? Why does a hostile
audience affect the outcome?"
**Its not as simple as cold war posturing though a lot of that goes on.
Like I said earlier Fischer likes to play in Yugoslavia and the Yugoslavs
have traditionally simply been very one sided with their feelings. Fischer
can pretty well expect to have his way on any "outside" issue ('outside'
being things that occur outside the game, if he needs to swim everyday
they'll find a swimming pool, etc...). With such an environment the
player finds him/herself capable of playing chess without worry of
"outside" issues. Meanwhile there opponent winds up playing second fiddle.ETC.
The Soviets actually *like* playing in Western Europe--they continuously
are making the rounds of tournaments there. The environment is simply
friendly enough and psychologically less threatening then other places.
Its hard to put into words why does a home advantage work in basketball?
Familiarity with the court? The fans? The cheerleaders? The overall friendly
environment? Why does a hostile audience affect the outcome of a basketball
game?
An anecdote of sorts. During the Petrosian-Fischer match in Argentina Fischer
again was the favorite. After he had thoroughly been drubbed Petrosian
said it was hard because: when Fischer didn't want to play - we didn't play,
when Fischer wanted to play, we played,
when Fischer wanted coffee, we all drank coffee.
[While we are on FISCHER-PETROSIAN, semi-final match 1971 - checkout game
1 and i believe 4/7(?) - the first one was interesting but the second is one
of Fischer's best games. It the Sicilian,Kan/Paulsen line game]
Fischer is not the only one to get preferential treatement the Soviets have
places were they recieved likewise. South American players like to play
in South America, etc. The Soviets like Iceland, Scandanavian Europe, Russia
etc.
Politics enters into site selection when people don't get what they want.
Or there opponent gets everything he wants. That's why you need someone
fairly astute working the bureaucratic details out.
-->"...chess players take this ESP thing seriously and feel that a room of
people thinking they want you to lose will actually make you play worse?"
** Some chess players take the ESP thing very seriously, so for them it
may as well be true. Others are skeptical. Others simply paranoid.
The ESP thing is only important to those that believe in it (which is I
suspect a fair number). Whatever, a hostile audience, will affect a
players performance and thought process(harder to concentrate...the thought
of the environment your in creeps in). laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/26/83)
what is the current World opinion on having everyone play chess in the place of their choice and relay their moves in by telephone to a central authority? laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
newman@utcsrgv.UUCP (Ken Newman) (08/27/83)
The problem with playing in isolation and relaying moves by phone is that it would be hard to assure both players that the other is really playing in isolation, i.e. with no help from other masters/programs etc. However, it seems to me that it would be quite possible to have a neutral third party (if one exists) officiate at an isolated match in some neutral location (if one exists). An audience of any size could watch the whole match on a nice big computer graphics display far from the players. Why does there have to be an audience staring at the players? Actually, it might be neat to have a tournament between say the US and Russia by phone, with a third party keeping time, records, etc., where both sides could use any resources they felt like using, including computers. Comments?