From: DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU (Dennis Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: A difference of opinions
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:21:00 GMT

On Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:28:00 GMT,"REYNOLDS, MARK ANTHONY"
				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<helios!physics.ucla.edu!reynolds@tssi.com> YELLS:

...

>I would have to say that I disagree heartily.  IMHO, Chess Chow is the
>most worthless piece of journalism I have ever read.  No flames, this
>is simply my opinion.

Oh I don't know... have you ever read THE NATION?  BTW, how humble is
your opinion? :)

>I purchased the December - January issue based on Hanon Russell's
>review which stated that they had improved tremendously in the first
>year, and that it was now a pretty decent magazine.  Boy, was I 
>disappointed.  I found a magazine that portrayed the authors as
>simply a bunch of immature schoolboys (whether they actually
>are I don't know) with nothing more interesting to report than
>what a horrible time they had in Bermuda, and how "cold and
>boring" Hastings was.  I was hoping for some intelligent, biting
>satire on the chess world, and found nothing but a group of
>chess players writing about how cool they are, and how uncool
>everyone else is.

Maybe they ARE cool, and we aren't!? <g>

It's curious how two people, myself and Reynolds, can read virtually
the same magazine and come away with a 180-degree difference in 
opinion.  (Unless the Dec-Jan issue was THAT different from my first
issue, the Feb-Mar one.)

When I first started playing chess, all I could associate with "some
human" was the printed name, the game score, and if I was lucky, some
actual comments by the player or players themselves.  Or even a third
party annotator, giving some life to the ink.

Unless you're a computer, just seeing a game score without notes does
very little for you.  Some of you may remember when Players Chess News
went into its decline, the later issues containing nothing but plain game
scores.  Well I CAN play through these dry presentations, and I CAN do
my own analysis, interpretation... but who wants to do all this work?

When I was a kid I was in the Boy Scouts.  The magazine Boy Scouts
subscribed to was BOY'S LIFE.  Curiously, there was a chess column in
every other issue when I was getting it by... Bobby Fischer!  It was
Fischer who taught me how to mate with king and rook vs. king (he even
showed how to mate with the 2 bishops and king vs. king -- these kinds
of things are of interest to a 12-year-old).  But Fischer also presented
his games.  I have a vivid memory of Fischer presenting his game vs.
Maigmasuren at Sousse 1967, and his famous a3!!  Fischer's wrote with
an enthusiasm which brought the game to life for me.  And there was a
blurry little photo above his column, so I could associate a face to
the personality the words conveyed.  I should add that I didn't know
who Fischer was at the time, but it just SEEMED he was good.  He was
always presenting a game from a tournament he just WON... he just
seemed great.  One month Fischer said he would be away at a tournament,
and the current U.S. Champion Larry Evans would take his place.  Well
this really confused me at the time, because I was sure Fischer must
have been better!?  But why wasn't HE the U.S. champion, I wondered.

My point is that Fischer brought the game to LIFE!  The only other chess
personality I saw was Koltanowsky on PBS.  He was a little dry, but 
interesting.  I mean I was desperate for a human chess player.

But for the most part, for the first several years when I took up chess,
there were no faces to attach to the enigmatic names of the chess games
I found in various books:  Botvinnik, Euwe, Portisch, Honfi, Tartakower,
Sax...  Not only that, when you did finally get a magazine, "Chess Life
[and Review]" for example, it was dominated by a few personalities.  This
was ok, but you still yearned for more variety.  And sure you eventually
ran across photos, but not of everyone.  You yearned for more.

Also, being from a chess backwater like Louisiana -- I mean Morphy has been
dead for a long time! -- just SEEING an actual living, breathing, walking,
talking, gum-chewing master was exciting.  During the 70's in La., we saw
very few masters at all.  A few Texas masters every now and then would
visit, Eric Bone, John Hall, Joe Bradford (who was actually a Louisianian
living in Texas), but these were "small potatoes" masters.  Well when
Bradford won the U.S. Open (if I'm remembering correctly) and played in
a U.S. Championship, that was interesting.  I mean I finished 2nd in a 
tournament in Franklin, Louisiana (where!?) in 1974 behind Joe Bradford
when I was a 1400-player!?  GM Bent Larsen gave a simultaneous exhibition
in New Orleans in the early 70's, but I missed that.  In the late 70's,
Calvin Blocker played in one tournament, and that was exciting for us
then.  I lost to him in that tournament.  Then in the early 80's, last
years Australian champion Darryl Johansen played in a tournament in New
Orleans.  That was also a thrill for us.  I lost to him in the last round.

My point is, for a lot of people, chess and the chess masters are in the
books.  These can only do so much to bring them to life.

Which brings me to Chess Chow.  So what if Chess Chow isn't up to YOUR level
of maturity.  So what if they complain about a tournament, about it being
boring and cold.  I mean, do YOU know what a tournament is like at this
level?  I don't.  Round-by-round tournament coverage is great.  Giving all
the game scores is great.  But ANNOTATE them.  Give me some PICTURES.  Bring
the tournament to LIFE.  I want to live.  I'm not a computer.

And that's what Chess Chow does for me.  It brings these tournaments, these
names printed on paper, to life!  You don't like the personalities?  Well
at least there IS a personality.

>Not my idea of an interesting magazine, and certainly not one that
>I would spend $5 for.  Don't waste your money.
>
>Anthony Reynolds

I disagree.

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>