Robert James Fischer, one of the greatest Chess Legends of all time has passed away. Just would like to post a blog in his honour. Besides, being a tactical genius in regular chess, he also formalized Random Chess.
I have written some comparisions about symmetry of skills in various different sports, in my book Dot Chess-The Cricket in Between. Cricket is asymmetric, since one side bowls and the other bats- and bowling and batting are radically different skills. Chess as such is symmetric (comparing pieces to players), and the way the pieces are maneuvered are same for White or Black, though White starts and gets a partial lead in tempo. Chess players, in fact have to introduce imbalance in the positions, so that favorable activity which can lead to advanatges or an initiative can be given a chance.
In Fischer Random Chess, chess pieces are shuffled in the back rank of White and then pieces are mirrored for Black- to maintain symmetry but to achieve a board which has a different strating line-up in each game. Bobby Fischer pioneered this format- to overcome the memorizing of openings and excessive theory that developed on account of the starting line up of pieces being fixed in conventional or 'old' chess (The King, Queen, rooks, knights and bishops have the same 'home' square in conventional chess in every game- not so in Fischer Random or Shuffle chess).
Unfortunately, the genius had an imbalanced and asymmetric journey in both phases of his life- in his glory days of chess and then later when he lead a strange life- always amidst controversies beyond chess. It is said that he only had one interest- to play chess and excel at it. For sure, within the realms of the 64-squares of the chess board - he was a fascinating genius and regarded as one the greatest ever by chess analysts and players. Was it then his fate that he did not reach the age of 65?
Perhaps Destiny has paid her tribute to the genius by devoting a chess square to each year of his life.
Peace be with him.
Saumil
Mumbai
Jan 15, 2008
Pacy Perth Preview- Australia v India 3rd Cricket Test
After the Sydney saga which went beyond cricket, we can finally look forward to Perth tomorrow- and hopefully the interest will be about cricket.
Everyone is talking about the pace and bounce of Perth. Most current Indian team members have not played a Test here (except Tendulkar), so it sure will be a test with Aussies expected to bowl with 4 seamers.
There are some interesting prospects though:
1. Just as Indians are not familiar with this sort of surface, Aussies aren't familiar facing 2 spinners (hopefully Harbhajan will play, as the rest of the pacers do not look threatening, especially since Zaheer Khan is out of the series).
2. Perhaps Harbhajan can be a stock bowler and Kumble can be seen as a third quick bowler- which as a legspinner he is. It will be interesting to see the length Kumble bowls and the pace. Likewise for Harbhajan, he may bowl fuller and vary his trajectory to exploit the bounce? So far in this series Kumble has made the bowlers bowl quite a disciplned length- not allowing too many horizontal bat shots.
3. Ganguly may be more than handy as well. Also, hopefully Tendulkar, Sehwag can bowl the slower stuff with an idea of altering the tempo of the game- as there is some mention about the wind. Apparently, Bedi has taken 10 wickets in a match here, although Warne has not gotten big hauls (which is perhaps on account of the efficiency of the Aussie pacers).
3. Indians did handle bounce well in the Test series last year in South Africa- as defensively the ball just flies over the stumps (in ODIs where run rate is key, such tracks are not fun for Indians, as seen in South Africa again last year).
So who will open the batting tomorrow for India? After 30 years this question lingers on...
Happy Sankrant (Kite Flying Festival)
Saumil
Mumbai, 15th Jan 2008
Everyone is talking about the pace and bounce of Perth. Most current Indian team members have not played a Test here (except Tendulkar), so it sure will be a test with Aussies expected to bowl with 4 seamers.
There are some interesting prospects though:
1. Just as Indians are not familiar with this sort of surface, Aussies aren't familiar facing 2 spinners (hopefully Harbhajan will play, as the rest of the pacers do not look threatening, especially since Zaheer Khan is out of the series).
2. Perhaps Harbhajan can be a stock bowler and Kumble can be seen as a third quick bowler- which as a legspinner he is. It will be interesting to see the length Kumble bowls and the pace. Likewise for Harbhajan, he may bowl fuller and vary his trajectory to exploit the bounce? So far in this series Kumble has made the bowlers bowl quite a disciplned length- not allowing too many horizontal bat shots.
3. Ganguly may be more than handy as well. Also, hopefully Tendulkar, Sehwag can bowl the slower stuff with an idea of altering the tempo of the game- as there is some mention about the wind. Apparently, Bedi has taken 10 wickets in a match here, although Warne has not gotten big hauls (which is perhaps on account of the efficiency of the Aussie pacers).
3. Indians did handle bounce well in the Test series last year in South Africa- as defensively the ball just flies over the stumps (in ODIs where run rate is key, such tracks are not fun for Indians, as seen in South Africa again last year).
So who will open the batting tomorrow for India? After 30 years this question lingers on...
Happy Sankrant (Kite Flying Festival)
Saumil
Mumbai, 15th Jan 2008
Oct 12, 2007
Dhoni converts imbalance to execution-India vs Aus ODI Vadodara 2007
So India were bowled out under 150 runs under 40 overs. Australia have been doing this to teams in the first innings, but the Indian batting just was not up for it today... it can happen against the Aussies...
So when Australia came to bat, Dhoni started with Harbhajan- just to cut the pace, exploit the dry pitch and take early wickets to try to defend the low score. If India were to win or make Australia work hard, spinners were the key. So recognizing the given situation he had to make some execution changes. Perhaps a fair idea to start with Harbhajan (he could also have tried few overs of pace with keeper standing up and had they got a wicket, he could rotate the pacers. This way he could defer the spinners till 10 overs and power plays could be deferred as well).
However, as I have mentioned in my book, the key is to recognize the peculiar nature of any situation and try to adjust the execution accordingly. So what else should have been done or could have been done, to follow up the decision to start with Harbhajan (and Zaheer Khan from other end with pace). As some TV commentators pointed out, perhaps having more close-in fielders to add to the pressure, was perhaps required for wicket taking... perhaps, but it is not easy defending such a low score with many more fielders up close.
My major point was the line Harbhajan bowled
He bowled outside leg stump and over the wicket to both the left-handers (Gilchrist, Hayden). He was getting turn from ball one. This was a red dusty surface made for Indian spinners. He sure tested the batsmen frequently and got in many dots- as evident from his good economy rate. But when strike rate is not a major issue, will the outside leg-stump balls threaten the batsmen? (in usual ODIs it would be effective, since strike rate is of concern and balls from around the legs will have to be played at more often).
In my view, this is an instance of recognizing the peculiar imbalance of the situation (by Dhoni- low score, dry pitch, and the fact that Aussie openers can murder pace)- to convert to an execution issue (sending in a spinner). But the manner in which the spinner bowled (good turn, but outside leg stump line) was the chess equivalent of sharp positional play when a forcing tactical approach was required. Perhaps bowling round-the-wicket (since there was turn), and making the batsmen play a turning ball but pitched in line with leg/middle, could have been the line and then mixing it up with his variations of a doosra or even wide outside off...
Sharp Positional Play would be the answer if Australia were chasing 240 plus. Imbalance was recognized but the execution, in my view, should have been more drastic (tactical, with more risks if needed).
Not that Australia would have lost... but if you try something different, let the difference be as different as is demanded...
But the good news is that Dhoni looks like the captain who will keep trying, provided the rest of us let him...
So when Australia came to bat, Dhoni started with Harbhajan- just to cut the pace, exploit the dry pitch and take early wickets to try to defend the low score. If India were to win or make Australia work hard, spinners were the key. So recognizing the given situation he had to make some execution changes. Perhaps a fair idea to start with Harbhajan (he could also have tried few overs of pace with keeper standing up and had they got a wicket, he could rotate the pacers. This way he could defer the spinners till 10 overs and power plays could be deferred as well).
However, as I have mentioned in my book, the key is to recognize the peculiar nature of any situation and try to adjust the execution accordingly. So what else should have been done or could have been done, to follow up the decision to start with Harbhajan (and Zaheer Khan from other end with pace). As some TV commentators pointed out, perhaps having more close-in fielders to add to the pressure, was perhaps required for wicket taking... perhaps, but it is not easy defending such a low score with many more fielders up close.
My major point was the line Harbhajan bowled
He bowled outside leg stump and over the wicket to both the left-handers (Gilchrist, Hayden). He was getting turn from ball one. This was a red dusty surface made for Indian spinners. He sure tested the batsmen frequently and got in many dots- as evident from his good economy rate. But when strike rate is not a major issue, will the outside leg-stump balls threaten the batsmen? (in usual ODIs it would be effective, since strike rate is of concern and balls from around the legs will have to be played at more often).
In my view, this is an instance of recognizing the peculiar imbalance of the situation (by Dhoni- low score, dry pitch, and the fact that Aussie openers can murder pace)- to convert to an execution issue (sending in a spinner). But the manner in which the spinner bowled (good turn, but outside leg stump line) was the chess equivalent of sharp positional play when a forcing tactical approach was required. Perhaps bowling round-the-wicket (since there was turn), and making the batsmen play a turning ball but pitched in line with leg/middle, could have been the line and then mixing it up with his variations of a doosra or even wide outside off...
Sharp Positional Play would be the answer if Australia were chasing 240 plus. Imbalance was recognized but the execution, in my view, should have been more drastic (tactical, with more risks if needed).
Not that Australia would have lost... but if you try something different, let the difference be as different as is demanded...
But the good news is that Dhoni looks like the captain who will keep trying, provided the rest of us let him...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
