penktadienis, gruodžio 07, 2007

"The abstract into blood"

Jau kokie trys metai kaip reguliariai (bent kelis kart per metus) perklausau Josh Waitzkin‘o šachmatų pamokas, įtrauktas į ‚Chessmaster 10th Edition‘. Iš principo būtent jo sugebėjimas perteikti šachmatų esmę, žaidimo principus, dinamiką ir daugiasluoksniškumą, privertė mane vėl jais susidomėti. Nežinau, tais retais kartais, kai prisėdu prie lentos, kraują užplūstantis adrenalinas ir gimstantis emocijų kiekis tiesiog nuneša man stogą, kažkuo primindamas paauglystės muštynes gatvėse ar trijų minučių šparingus ant tatamių – toks unikalus balansas tarp konstrukcijos (savaime suprantama čia ne apie „Pasodink medį...“ tipą kalbu..) ir destrukcijos. Bandydamas pailiustruoti cituoju įžangą, į vieną jo anotuotą partiją:


It is rare that a high level chess game is a perfect story. The game is not a sonnet, there is little structure, no editing, and two authors who want to tear each other apart. The work of art created by chess players is the result of two clashing forces, molding moment to moment to the whim and brilliance of the other. The opposing strengths do not allow for immediate explosion, any slip will be deadly. One can imagine a Master of Aikido and of Karate both brimming with force and precision and power of completely different natures. Now these beings come into conflict, they look at one another, no rush. Much will be decided by what does not happen. In high level competition, Grand Masters and International Masters from different worlds are brought together. Their chess education, religious backgrounds, morality, and day-to-day life are often hilariously opposing. Suddenly a group of ten or twenty of these modern gladiators are thrown into a melting pot for two weeks. This can lead to fascinating, if not bizarre, dinner conversations, and intense friendships and rivalries. Some people are bitter others at peace, some talk others listen. The human beings meet while the competitors notice how quickly the other eats his soup.

Such was the scene at my last tournament in Burmuda. Every year the Mermaid Beach Hotel hosts a prestigious closed tournament in which GM's and IM's from all over the world show up to soak up the ray's and duke it out. In '98, Nigel Freeman, the tournament organizer decided to invite 10 GM's and IM's from Europe to compete in the team competition with 10 of us from the Americas. Most of the players invited to Burmuda are young, up and coming, charismatic talents who would war on the basketball courts and dig the beach between rounds. This is without question my favorite tournament of the year. In the second round I was paired against a German Grand Master named Michael Bezold. We had played once before, In Burmuda '97, and I was able to develop a mating attack out of a difficult positional struggle. I had watched him play in a few tournaments and had noticed some interesting tendencies. Bezold has a pecular style with specific weaknesses. First of all he does not like to make central pawn moves early in the game, too commital, static. He does not like to make decisions, in other words he likes to maintain a funky detachment in the position and he understands unorthodox positional maneuvering at a very high level. Most strengths tend to have a counter force and I had found that he was often unwilling to get specific when the position demands it.

He sometimes has difficulty handling the transitional moment in which the struggle transforms from the abstract into blood. Because of an attraction to what comes before engagement, I think his sense of danger is often impeded by denial in the instant bullets start to fly. Of course Bezold is a Grand Master, and so to take advantage of any such weakness is very difficult. I had the Black pieces in this game, which gave me even less control of the situation. All I could do was play good moves, give him as many specific situations as possible, all the while dancing the strange dance of detachment. While I approached this game with a plan, I did not try to impose it upon the struggle so much as to let the position bring about critical moments in which I would make a stylistic decision. One distinction should be understood, when I say that my opponent does not like to make concrete decisions, I do not mean that I should make the game tactical, but that I should give him a situation in which the position dictates that the only way to maintain equilibrium would be for him to go in a direction which is against his grain. I would let him work against chess, a far greater opponent than myself.


PS.: Galima labai ilga diskusija (demagogijos seansas) apie agresijos evoliuciją, bet gal kada kitą kartą, vis dėlto per daug prirašyti nėra prasmės.. Kaip kad Pukomuko per blogerių konferenciją išsireiškė – ‘Blogas yra kaip tualetinio popieriaus rulonėlis, kas diena vis po lapuką atplėšiamas…’ nu gal čia ne visai pažodžiui… :)

Komentarų nėra: