What is the reason for the remarkable success of Chinese players in international chess? According to Prof. David H. Li it is due to the fact that they are all experienced in XiangQi, the combative and fast Chinese version of the game.
According to the professor, "When one is accustomed to playing a game with a higher manoeuvrability ratio, one has an advantage in playing a game with a lower manoeuvrability ratio. Moreover XiangQi introduces synergy into your thinking process and playing style. By broadening your horizon, you start to think more creatively; by improving your grasp of spatial relationship, you are visualizing more dynamically; and by deepening your analytical skill, you play more imaginatively." Of course, there is more. Simply check out the article about XiangQi and chess.
I also played XiangQi when I was younger, shortly before I started learning chess. I had some flair for the game and I liked to play it against my grandfather. Sometimes I played it online, but I haven't played in years and I don't recall ever playing it while I was playing "international chess". I'm planning to re-learn the game and play it online occasionally. I've always thought, having learned it before I learned the rules to international chess, that it has helped me in developing my chess skills.
Now, I have on many occasions played XiangQi (Chinese Chess) as well as other variants (like Shogi, Gothic Chess, or Berolina Chess). I've always felt that these variants offered a new kind of insight into chess.
However, I take issue with this so called expert professor Li. First of all, he is an amateur at XiangQi and simply doesn't play western chess. This to me disqualifies him to talk about the relationships between the two. I firmly believe that his points about the relationships are correct but you don't see me masquerading as an expert in the relationships of the two games.
What qualifies Mr. Li to speak on this matter? His books? There are many charlatans that publish books on chess ... that's just simply not good enough. His attitude? Mr. Li speaks with authority and that makes him no doubt a great leader in the XiangQi movement but other than that his attitude could be viewed as simple arrogance.
I think it would be better to find someone at the top of XiangQi that is at least a master in chess and get their input. I've seen Larry Kaufman talk about the relationship of chess and shogi and he made alot of sense. I guess what I'm trying to say (avoiding getting way off point) is that, even when a person has a valid point, until they obtain qualification I think it's better to stay silent.
I was cruising the blogosphere (chessblogland) and John from Endgame Clothing brought this article he wrote to my attention. It first appeared on Jeremy Silman's site and I'll just give you a taste:
I have always had an amazing ability to learn. My parents told me that several teachers throughout my youth commented that I was a gifted learner. I imagine they kept this information to themselves so as to encourage me to one day become a well-adjusted adult. This ability to learn was evident in every intellectual endeavor I attempted. I was creative and mature in my understanding of language while destroying the grading curves in math and science.
As the chess world absorbed the news of the closure of ChessUSA blog, the mystery of who did it ricocheted around the chess forums like a bullet. Fingers first pointed towards the hated Susan Polgar. She said this:
I was just told that Mr. Steve Owens received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I find this appalling. I do not agree with Mr. Owens’ view on many occasions but this is chess politics at its worst. This is wrong.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
The President of the USCF rejected this, however. He issued this statement to the USCF’s Forums:
. . . Where did Susan say it was not her? She said it was "chess politics at its worst" and "This is wrong," but where did she deny that it was her?
Remember, when Brian Lafferty asked Susan and Paul on this Forum about February 2007 if they were married to each other, their response was to ignore the question and attack Brian. Most posters saw this reaction as a "no" answer to the question, but it was not. In May it was learned that they were married in December 2006, but this info was not in the June Chess Life and had it been, Paul might not have been elected, as many voters feel it is improper for one family to control two votes (half the number of votes necessary to pass a board motion). Susan and Paul subsequently denied trying to hide their marriage, and they were apparently correct that they didn't say they were not married to each other, just gave that impression without saying so.
Bill Goichberg
This was a most serious comparison. My response to this comparison was censored off the USCF’s Forums and no further rebuttal to this has appeared on that venue by anybody else. This is what I wrote:
Bill Goichberg, in the dishonest way that has become the staple of discussion of anything Polgar by USCF’s leaders, said about Susan’s first statement that “This was wrong” did not constitute a denial and compared her statement to her earlier statement in 2007 regarding her marriage. To be honestly comparable, she would have to said her marriage was “appalling”; “it is chess politics at its worst”; and “this is wrong”. In fact, in her statement on her marriage, she only said that she found Brian Lafferty’s question rude and insulting and she refused to answer it. Reasonable people would find some degree of gap between one statement and the other.
As for Steve's case, I can’t help but wonder how Susan's lawyer would handle a case that his client had just publicly and on the record labeled “appalling” and “wrong”. I’m no lawyer, but if I had to and if I was allowed, I bet that even I could defend Steve and win!
A few minutes later, he posted this:
I didn't say that it was Susan, only that she has not denied that it was her.
"Chess politics at its worst" is not a denial. "This is wrong" is not a denial.
I suppose it could be someone else described in "This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and that is their right." There aren't many who fit that description, but there might be someone else out there who operates blogs or groups on which opposition is silenced.
Following is the last post Steve made before announcing the closing of his blog. Did this post cause Polgar or Truong to threaten legal action? I don't know for sure, but see no reason to rule out the possibility.
The inhabitants at the USCF’s Forums leapt to the conclusion that Susan and/or Paul Truong were the murderers.
Steve, in your post on ChessUSA.net you stated (1) that the people concerned are "interested parties" in the Executive Board election; and (2) that they have multiple online venues under their control in which they have also silenced opposition. Since you are using plural here ("parties", "their control", "they") we can also assume (3) that the threat comes from at least two people acting in concert and jointly controlling online venues.
In my opinion, the only people who fit this bill are Polgar and Truong. I hope you will correct me if I am drawing the wrong conclusion.
- Brian Mottershead
Since I was the one man who was at the intersection of the mystery, (partner in the deceased blog and also Moderator in Susan’s forum) I contacted Susan who replied by e-mail.
Jack,
The first I heard about this was a few hours ago from one of the USCF members who alerted me about the wild accusations and speculations which surfaced on the net. Neither Paul or I have anything to do with this and we hope that Steve would go public with this information. In fact, I encourage him to go public with it for the sake of all USCF members.
Best wishes,
Susan
I also contacted Steve Owens, the legal owner of ChessUSA. He would not give more information to me beyond what he had publicly announced.
I felt like Lieutenant Columbo of TV Fame as I asked the chess players to look at the evidence instead of leaping to conclusions. Here’s a portion of what I said.
But anyway, what’s a few facts getting in the way of all the anti-Polgar mania? Well, let’s list a few facts, anyway.
Item: Bill Goichberg’s other piece of evidence was “Steve’s” last statement on the blog before he closed it. Very clever wordplay by the USCF’s President for sure. Yes, indeedy, the anti-Polgar post quoted by Bill G was the very last one done by Steve but it was not the last one done on the blog.
Item: The last one done on the blog was done by myself!!! It was a rebuttal of the last post by Steve. That last blog post defended Susan and attacked the USCF leadership.
Item: The post Bill G gave so much weight to, contained 4 comments which he did not quote. 2 were by me, one by Donna A, and one by Steve. 2 of those 4 comments (50%) were critical of the USCF leadership (Donna and me), 1 was neutral (me), and Steve’s was anti-Polgar.
Item: Since December 1, 2008 (last 2 months) there have been a total of 13 posts. 9 were by me and 4 by Steve. 4 posts attacked the USCF leadership while only 1 post attacked Susan – the one Bill Goichberg quoted.
Item: ChessUSA should be considered a Pro-Polgar blog by a 4 to 1 ratio in the last 2 months.
Query: In earlier months the ratio changed depending upon whether Steve or myself was active. So, why would Susan suddenly launch this kind of attack just when the ratio had swung decisively in her favor?
Query: If Susan had given any attention to what was on the blog at all, which I doubt, wouldn’t a better course have been to quietly encourage me to post more on it and turn it into an even more pro-Polgar bastion than it already was? - Especially in light of Steve’s reluctance to post on it, by his own statement as well as his history?
So, if the obvious suspect did not do it, then who did? As Lieutenant Columbo might have asked, as he gazed down at the murder victim, “Who dunnit?”
On Wednesday, February 4 at 6 pm PST, Chesspark and WuChess.com will launch the first season of the Chesspark College Association (CCA). The CCA is a fast-paced, online, college chess league featuring the some of the top college chess players in the country competing in online tournaments and matches. The CCA season will kickoff with a round robin, G/30 team tournament between five teams of college players from New York University/Borough of Manhattan Community College, Stanford University, the University of Arizona, University of Miami/Miami Dade, and the University of Texas Brownsville. Twice a week, teams of four players competing for a $500 cash prize will face off in a head-to-head, team match played live on Chesspark.com.
The league features some of the best college chess players in the country including IM Elliott Liu from Stanford, IM Mackenzie Molner from NYU, FM Harper Warren from the University of Arizona, and FM Charles Galofre from Miami Dade. However despite the strength of the league, the CCA differs from many traditional chess leagues and tournaments, in the sense that it seeks to appeal not only to serious chess players but also to casual chess players unfamiliar with the chess world.
"Every basketball fan in the country can watch a live, college basketball game on television," explains Chesspark general manager Jean Hoffman, "What if every chess fan in the US could watch a live, college chess match for free on the internet?"
Modeled after the US Chess League and the NCAA, the CCA seeks to promote online chess to a new market of college students and players by allowing anyone to watch the matches live and for free on Chesspark.com. During the post-match interview, spectators can ask the players questions and go over the games.
"For me, the choice to participate in the CCA was an easy one." explains Liu, "From the moment I heard about the concept, I knew it would be a great way to broaden chess' accessibility to the public as well as provide a new, competitive chess playing environment with intriguing match ups."
Visit the Chesspark College Association for more information and a complete schedule of matches; visit Chesspark to create your own free account and watch the matches live.
Don't Forget To Join Chessvine On Facebook
Subscribe to RSS
Receive Posts By E-mail
Podcast/MP3s
Chessvine On Facebook
Chessvine On Myspace
Chessvine On Twitter
Chessvine On Youtube!
I have always had an amazing ability to learn. My parents told me that several teachers throughout my youth commented that I was a gifted learner. I imagine they kept this information to themselves so as to encourage me to one day become a well-adjusted adult. This ability to learn was evident in every intellectual endeavor I attempted. I was creative and mature in my understanding of language while destroying the grading curves in math and science.
