Your chance to be a pro for a day
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:09 am
I was inputting some games from the 1920s this morning. One in particular crystallised out a thought I've long kept bubbling below the surface.
In those days there were no titles and so no title games. As a result the games chosen for published commentaries were rather more eclectic than now. Also, the pro system was new but still based on the old teacher-pupil paradigm. It was very common, therefore, to see games between young pros commented by a senior figure. Unlike today, the senior figure could allow himself to be quite forthright in his comments without resorting to jokiness. Nowadays, we rarely see this level of play or commentary, yet I think it probably contains more valuable oxygen for the average amateur than games in the rarified air of title summits.
A further, quite different, point: I notice quite a lot of amateurs, especially the weaker ones who talk about playing in such-and-such a style, rather fancy themselves at the fuseki stage. I always assume they feel lost in the deep forest of tactics but relieved when they reach a clear grassy knoll with a bit of a view. The fact that they still have to cross that forest to get home seems to concern them far less than making a move that looks like Takemiya, or whoever.
But in the games I am talking about, it is precisely the fuseki that gets nearly all the attention from the senior scrutineer. In the game below, for example, two 4-dans played 139 moves (I give the first 50), so you can tell it was ultimately a tactical affair and one player boobed tactically somewhere. But three-quarters of the commentary related to the first 23 moves. The next comment did not come till move 54. Once the fighting started the commentator just assumed the players knew what they were doing - as I say, a common pattern in these commentaries.
In those first 23 moves, six attracted comment.
I thought some of you may wish to play the senior pro for the day (it was Iwasa Kei 6-dan, much respected for his theoretical knowledge). Share your thoughts on a half dozen or so moves. Unless you've seen something Iwasa missed, you won't need any tactical (or joseki) sequences. I'll publish Iwasa's comments later.
The narrative for the rest of this game is that Black messed around for a bit on the right side to create some thickness, which he used to attack White's lower centre group, which lived minimally but gave Black more centre thickness. White then felt obliged to invade on the upper side but Black's thickness told and White died.
In those days there were no titles and so no title games. As a result the games chosen for published commentaries were rather more eclectic than now. Also, the pro system was new but still based on the old teacher-pupil paradigm. It was very common, therefore, to see games between young pros commented by a senior figure. Unlike today, the senior figure could allow himself to be quite forthright in his comments without resorting to jokiness. Nowadays, we rarely see this level of play or commentary, yet I think it probably contains more valuable oxygen for the average amateur than games in the rarified air of title summits.
A further, quite different, point: I notice quite a lot of amateurs, especially the weaker ones who talk about playing in such-and-such a style, rather fancy themselves at the fuseki stage. I always assume they feel lost in the deep forest of tactics but relieved when they reach a clear grassy knoll with a bit of a view. The fact that they still have to cross that forest to get home seems to concern them far less than making a move that looks like Takemiya, or whoever.
But in the games I am talking about, it is precisely the fuseki that gets nearly all the attention from the senior scrutineer. In the game below, for example, two 4-dans played 139 moves (I give the first 50), so you can tell it was ultimately a tactical affair and one player boobed tactically somewhere. But three-quarters of the commentary related to the first 23 moves. The next comment did not come till move 54. Once the fighting started the commentator just assumed the players knew what they were doing - as I say, a common pattern in these commentaries.
In those first 23 moves, six attracted comment.
I thought some of you may wish to play the senior pro for the day (it was Iwasa Kei 6-dan, much respected for his theoretical knowledge). Share your thoughts on a half dozen or so moves. Unless you've seen something Iwasa missed, you won't need any tactical (or joseki) sequences. I'll publish Iwasa's comments later.
The narrative for the rest of this game is that Black messed around for a bit on the right side to create some thickness, which he used to attack White's lower centre group, which lived minimally but gave Black more centre thickness. White then felt obliged to invade on the upper side but Black's thickness told and White died.
? Jowa, this time as White, in a game against Genan played 1818-09-19. However the left side of that game had already been played out to a considerable degree.
.
D-15
K-17
C-11