03 Mar 08
It might also be said, that when the programme gives Polgar a memory test to see how good she is a recognising a chess position ...
they conveniently gave her a theoretical postion from the Zaitsev variation of the Ruy Lopez that even *I* could reconstruct after just a second to look at it.
See here for more detail if you're interested.
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2006/10/susan-polgars-brilliant-brain.html
Seem to remember the programme also forgot to mention Paul Turong is Polgar's husband.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by tomtom232I refer you to the previous post by Jonathat that explains how I understood the sentence and the idea that might gotten across viewers not used to chess.
The equal footing isn't talking about chess skill. It means that she played them one on one in a serious tournament and not in a simul or blindfold match.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232again ... you're surely not claiming Polgar played Fischer in a tournament game?
The equal footing isn't talking about chess skill. It means that she played them one on one in a serious tournament and not in a simul or blindfold match.
PS:
anybody who wants to do their own memory test on a position (as faked by Polgar in this programme) there's one here:-
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/pattern-recognition.html
the follow up post is here
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2007/08/pattern-recognition-ii.html
but don't look at this until you've gone to the first link if you want to do the test.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232While I'm here...
The equal footing isn't talking about chess skill. It means that she played them one on one in a serious tournament and not in a simul or blindfold match.
no evidence that Polgar (any of them) even played Fischer in a blindfold match or a simul. Certainly not in public. Ever.
At their house when he stayed with them maybe.
The claim on the TV programme was definitely misleading but not technically a lie.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI never said they did. I might have spoke too soon about Susan playing a tournament game with Fischer, but the aspect of the game being serious is still true as Mephisto stated earlier.
While I'm here...
no evidence that Polgar (any of them) even played Fischer in a blindfold match or a simul. Certainly not in public. Ever.
At their house when he stayed with them maybe.
The claim on the TV programme was definitely misleading but not technically a lie.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2I'd like to see those games between Polgar (any of them) and Fischer.
... I can give you games between her and Fischer or Karpov ....
[edit]
No games between Fischer and any of the Polgar sisters at chessgames.com
No games between Fischer and any of the polgar sisters on chessbase big database 2004.
I really doubt any game between them has been made public (at all - let alone in any setting that could be considered 'serious'😉.
If you have one I'd love to see it - you have a real find.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonIt was still a secret when the program was filmed. I know that because part of it was filmed in Oxford, where I live, and I went down to visit Polgar at her hotel with my children. She was nice and friendly, and so was Truong, who I had never heard of before. I Googled him when I got back home and was rather horrified with what came back. Months later it came out that they were married all the time when they were campaigning to join the USCF board and later still Truong was exposed as the "Fake Sam Sloan". I found (and still find) it all very depressing
Seem to remember the programme also forgot to mention Paul Turong is Polgar's husband.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by tomtom232You're saying that Fischer - who stopped playing in 1972 other than the 1992 match against Spassky - has played a 'serious' game against Polgar? In what way serious?
I never said they did. I might have spoke too soon about Susan playing a tournament game with Fischer, but the aspect of the game being serious is still true as Mephisto stated earlier.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyThat's an interesting tidbit FL... I didn't know they had been married in secret. Fair enough if that's what they want to do - it's no concern of mine.
It was still a secret when the program was filmed ....
Unless they get involved in a documentary of course - documentaries shouldn't have secrets methinks.
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI think they're perfectly entitled to keep their private lives private, but not if they then both campaign for places on the USCF board. Then, I think, they should have laid all their cards on the table so that people could decide whether they wanted a married couple on the board or whether they would prefer to just have one (or none) of them.
That's an interesting tidbit FL... I didn't know they had been married in secret. Fair enough if that's what they want to do - it's no concern of mine.
Unless they get involved in a documentary of course - documentaries shouldn't have secrets methinks.
04 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI hate that about Chemistry. They LIE to students in chem classes. Then the next semester, in the next level of chemistry, the professors, with smirks on their face, say that the REAL way it works is like this, as if they're so wise and profound and the students should be amazed that they have this secret knowledge. For example, telling students that the orbitals are neatly in order; first, then second, then third, etc. However the 4s electrons are of lower energy than the 3d electrons. It's not as neat as students are told the first time.
a guy studying math in the university once told me: "the first year in uni I learned that everything I'd been taught about math before, was wrong." 🙂
What do you expect when you're lied to the first time? I always felt like punching smirking professors.
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI never got anything like that, possibly because engineering math was more practically oriented, and all of the stuff had to work in practice straight from the beginning... or maybe I just had good professors.
I hate that about Chemistry. They LIE to students in chem classes. Then the next semester, in the next level of chemistry, the professors, with smirks on their face, say that the REAL way it works is like this, as if they're so wise and profound and the students should be amazed that they have this secret knowledge. For example, telling students th ...[text shortened]... u expect when you're lied to the first time? I always felt like punching smirking professors.
instead of the evil ones with a black cape, ponytail and a goatee, stroking a cat with a diamond collar and ending every lecture into a diabolical laughter like you did. 🙂
04 Mar 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyI agree - but they brought their lives into the public domain by being in a documentary and not being honest about what was going on.
I think they're perfectly entitled to keep their private lives private, but ...
If they had wanted to keep their lives private they could have made that documentary without bringing the geezer into it but THEY chose to be publicly dishonest. It's that that deserves criticism IMHO. If they'd have stayed out of the public eye then, as you say, who cares?
That's the thing about the whole programme - it would have been just as easy to have made an honest programme but for some reason they chose to be misleading in several places.