20 Dec 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedWell, your last sentence didn't say that. Najdorf didn't invent the Najdorf, and Damiano bears no responsibility for Damiano's defence. Polugaevsky, on the other hand, was solely responsible for his variation - at least as far as I'm aware. I don't think originality is a criterion of genius in itself - as witness the joke about how mediocrity invents, genius plagiarizes and forgets where from.
20 Dec 18
@lemon-lime saidThere is that joke, where the punch line is 'see, now you are getting smart''
If you pay big bucks for some genius pills but discover they are only tic tacs, there's a very good chance you will become smarter.
23 Dec 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedSo Boris got the center pretty quickly. Bobby's rooks were not cooperating either. At the end, the black bishop would fall next after queen protection goes away.
He must have been taken by surprise with that KG. I wonder what he would have played differently now, if he was still alive that is.
23 Dec 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedSo?
The Alekhine opening was famously played by many people, and not taken seriously until Alekhine adopted it.
The Dutch opening was already known when Elias Stein wrote his book and (indirectly) gave it its name.
The Sveshnikov, now so famous and fashionable, was once known by the illustrious name of Pelikan, and before that by the not so illustrious name of Lasker... none of whom invented it.
In fact, the only opening I know of which is generally acknowledged to have been actually invented by the guy it's named after is the Evans gambit.
(Of course, he wasn't Chinese, so even it probably doesn't count. Still, he was Welsh, not one of the horrible oppressive white English.)
In general, chess openings are named after the people who wrote a treatise on them, or who proved them viable, not after the people who were the very first to play them. This is how it is; get over it.
@shallow-blue saidMe too.
I do do well in IQ tests. That's why I know they're overrated.
I was told I scored exceptionally well and was even offered a position in a submarine that would have me 3rd in command (in the year 1999)...
Later testing said I had "psychological tendencies" and told me they weren't allowing me into the armed forces.
I agree. I.Q.tests are over rated. I'm no genius but I scored well but suck at life. Basically starting over at 40.
What does"psychological tendencies" even mean?