From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

it is often advantageous to trade when suddenly pressured. An exception
is when the piece you are exchanging with is on the other side of the
board. It's better to keep those defenders and force them to double up
on positions. Because all they are doing is moving in piece after piece
faster than exchanging can exhaust.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

sion F2 wrote:

it is often advantageous to trade when suddenly pressured.-a An exception
is when the piece you are exchanging with is on the other side of the board.-a It's better to keep those defenders and force them to double up
on positions. Because all they are doing is moving in piece after piece faster than exchanging can exhaust.

It can be good to exchange off attacking pieces. Just be sure that the defender you lose isn't crucial.

It can also be good to defend when in a cramped position. Again, be
careful which pieces you exchange. Getting rid of your bad bishop can
be very beneficial, but getting rid of your good one can lose with
remarkable speed.

Most weaker players exchange too often. When I subject my games to
computer analysis it turns out that my most common form of error is in exchanging. I do it too often.

I'm therefore trying to exchange less often, but my natural inclination
to clarify the position keeps telling me to exchange.

William Hyde
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

William Hyde wrote:

sion F2 wrote:

it is often advantageous to trade when suddenly pressured.-a An
exception is when the piece you are exchanging with is on the other
side of the board.-a It's better to keep those defenders and force them
to double up on positions. Because all they are doing is moving in
piece after piece faster than exchanging can exhaust.

It can be good to exchange off attacking pieces.-a Just be sure that the defender you lose isn't crucial.

It can also be good to defend when in a cramped position.-a Again, be careful which pieces you exchange.-a Getting rid of your bad bishop can
be very beneficial, but getting rid of your good one can lose with remarkable speed.

Most weaker players exchange too often.-a When I subject my games to computer analysis it turns out that my most common form of error is in exchanging.-a I do it too often.

I'm therefore trying to exchange less often, but my natural inclination
to clarify the position keeps telling me to exchange.

William Hyde

Well, you should at least turn off the instinct when behind in material.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

sion F2 wrote:

William Hyde wrote:

sion F2 wrote:

it is often advantageous to trade when suddenly pressured.-a An
exception is when the piece you are exchanging with is on the other
side of the board.-a It's better to keep those defenders and force
them to double up on positions. Because all they are doing is moving
in piece after piece faster than exchanging can exhaust.

It can be good to exchange off attacking pieces.-a Just be sure that
the defender you lose isn't crucial.

It can also be good to defend when in a cramped position.-a Again, be
careful which pieces you exchange.-a Getting rid of your bad bishop can
be very beneficial, but getting rid of your good one can lose with
remarkable speed.

Most weaker players exchange too often.-a When I subject my games to
computer analysis it turns out that my most common form of error is in
exchanging.-a I do it too often.

I'm therefore trying to exchange less often, but my natural
inclination to clarify the position keeps telling me to exchange.

William Hyde

Well, you should at least turn off the instinct when behind in material.

That's easy enough.

But I did read an article by a very strong player, Larry Evans (not the
GM and US champion, but a 2400+ player of the same name), on how many
games he had lost by exchanging while up material. Even in that case, exchanges must be carefully watched.

Though it is surprising how often in high level games very strong
players exchange while behind in material, e.g. Schlechter in game 10 of
his match with Lasker exchanged queens. It would have been a very
difficult win with queens on and as Lasker had already blown one win in
this match, I think Schlechter had something to hope for.

William Hyde

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

William Hyde wrote:

sion F2 wrote:

William Hyde wrote:

sion F2 wrote:

it is often advantageous to trade when suddenly pressured.-a An
exception is when the piece you are exchanging with is on the other
side of the board.-a It's better to keep those defenders and force
them to double up on positions. Because all they are doing is moving
in piece after piece faster than exchanging can exhaust.

It can be good to exchange off attacking pieces.-a Just be sure that
the defender you lose isn't crucial.

It can also be good to defend when in a cramped position.-a Again, be
careful which pieces you exchange.-a Getting rid of your bad bishop
can be very beneficial, but getting rid of your good one can lose
with remarkable speed.

Most weaker players exchange too often.-a When I subject my games to
computer analysis it turns out that my most common form of error is
in exchanging.-a I do it too often.

I'm therefore trying to exchange less often, but my natural
inclination to clarify the position keeps telling me to exchange.

William Hyde

Well, you should at least turn off the instinct when behind in material.

That's easy enough.

But I did read an article by a very strong player, Larry Evans (not the
GM and US champion, but a 2400+ player of the same name), on how many
games he had lost by exchanging while up material.-a Even in that case, exchanges must be carefully watched.

Though it is surprising how often in high level games very strong
players exchange while behind in material, e.g. Schlechter in game 10 of
his match with Lasker exchanged queens.-a It would have been a very difficult win with queens on and as Lasker had already blown one win in
this match, I think Schlechter had something to hope for.

William Hyde

I'm thinking about this right now - I exchanged a queen at a +2. I
think +4 is in the bag, trade away, but less than that and some
opponents can shift the momentum.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 18:57:41 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Though it is surprising how often in high level games very strong
players exchange while behind in material, e.g. Schlechter in game 10 of
his match with Lasker exchanged queens. It would have been a very
difficult win with queens on and as Lasker had already blown one win in
this match, I think Schlechter had something to hope for.

Which cost him the World Championship since he was up one point in the
last game of the match - he only needed a draw to grab the title.

Instead he returned home to Vienna and literally starved to death in
the last days of WW1

(In those days a challenger had to arrange the purse and with what
Schlechter - who everyone agreed was a good challenger - was able to
raise Lasker would only agree to a 10 game match. In the pre-WW2 era
the title was considered the Champion's property and he got to decide
the terms of each match - which is how Bogolyubov got a title shot
while others at least as qualified didn't. It was only after WW2 when
Alekhine died as champion that FIDE took over the title organization -
it started with a 1948 tournament of top players - which in my opinion
created the best chess book ever - followed by various iterations of
matches until you get what you have now.

In the Soviet era prizes were small and one champion - can't recall if
it was Smyslov or Tal - said he only got 10000 rubles for beating
Botvinnik. Though things got better later on - in 1971 Taimanov (who
was a good though not stellar GM) had a car though following his
Vancouver match with Fischer was made to sell it)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 18:57:41 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Though it is surprising how often in high level games very strong
players exchange while behind in material, e.g. Schlechter in game 10 of
his match with Lasker exchanged queens. It would have been a very
difficult win with queens on and as Lasker had already blown one win in
this match, I think Schlechter had something to hope for.

Which cost him the World Championship since he was up one point in the
last game of the match - he only needed a draw to grab the title.

Instead he returned home to Vienna and literally starved to death in
the last days of WW1

(In those days a challenger had to arrange the purse and with what
Schlechter - who everyone agreed was a good challenger - was able to
raise Lasker would only agree to a 10 game match. In the pre-WW2 era
the title was considered the Champion's property and he got to decide
the terms of each match - which is how Bogolyubov got a title shot
while others at least as qualified didn't.

This also explains why Capa only defended his title once. Nobody
thought it worth raising his steep fee for a challenger who was destined
to lose. The cash for the 27 match was largely raised from South
American contributors who wanted to see their hero win another WC match.

If Capa's fees had been less steep he might have played Alekhine
earlier, in 25 or so, and most likely would have won. Alekhine kept
Capa's fees, which were even harder to raise in the depression.

Maroczy never got his match with Lasker, being unable to raise the 2500 required. He lost interest in chess and you can see his retrospective
rating drop significantly in a time when he should have been in his
prime, only to rise again when he decided he wanted to continue playing,
even if the championship was out of reach.

This also was one of two things that cost Kashdan his US title. He was clearly stronger than Marshall in the early 1930s, but couldn't raise
the required five grand (or four grand, the Marshall club volunteered to
put up the last grand) in the depression. By the time Marshall finally
gave up the title Reshevsky and Fine were on the scene. And the only
time Kashdan outpaced those the title was stolen by an insane TD, of
course.


William Hyde
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 18:44:00 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

If Capa's fees had been less steep he might have played Alekhine
earlier, in 25 or so, and most likely would have won. Alekhine kept
Capa's fees, which were even harder to raise in the depression.

Normally the prize fund was quoted in terms of X% for the winner Y%
for the loser so "Alekhine kept Cata's fees" isn't strictly true.

The smallest prize fund was the one for Lasker-Schlechter because that
was all Schlecter could raise - and Austria wasn't a good place for
raising funds. Fundraising in that era was all about who got title
shots and who didn't.

Maroczy never got his match with Lasker, being unable to raise the 2500 >required. He lost interest in chess and you can see his retrospective >rating drop significantly in a time when he should have been in his
prime, only to rise again when he decided he wanted to continue playing, >even if the championship was out of reach.

This also was one of two things that cost Kashdan his US title. He was >clearly stronger than Marshall in the early 1930s, but couldn't raise
the required five grand (or four grand, the Marshall club volunteered to
put up the last grand) in the depression. By the time Marshall finally
gave up the title Reshevsky and Fine were on the scene. And the only
time Kashdan outpaced those the title was stolen by an insane TD, of >course.

Reuben Fine was invited to the 1948 World Championship
Match-Tournament but declined as he was in a conflict between the M-T
and doing his psychiatric residency. On balance I think he made the
right choice.

(About a year ago I acquired a first edition copy of Basic Chess
Endings which is much smaller (both as a book and in type size) than
the later versions most of us have seen. I'm a big fan of Fine's
writings and would love to get a copy of Ideas Behind the Chess
Openings but at this point in my life that's unlikely - I >DO< have a
complete set of Informants and have included a note in my will that
this is a valuable set and that under no circumstances should it be
broken up)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 18:44:00 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

If Capa's fees had been less steep he might have played Alekhine
earlier, in 25 or so, and most likely would have won. Alekhine kept
Capa's fees, which were even harder to raise in the depression.

Normally the prize fund was quoted in terms of X% for the winner Y%
for the loser so "Alekhine kept Cata's fees" isn't strictly true.

Under the London rules set up by Capablanca and agreed to by leading
players, including Alekhine, no champion was required to defend his
title for less than ten thousand dollars, plus expenses, and the prize
was to be split 60-40. Alekhine retained these terms when he was
champion. Of course the champion could defend for less if he chose.

The challenger had to raise the money. Alekhine raised ten grand US
with the help of South Americans. In the depression, Capa could not
raise the same amount.

Their last match negotiations were in 1938, but again Capablanca
couldn't raise the money. By this time he was out of favour in Cuba,
which would have made it even harder to raise the cash.

Bogolyubov also failed to raise 10k, but he did raise 6k and agreed that
this would go to Alekhine, win or lose. Thus the champion got exactly
the same fee as he would get if he won a 10k match, with no risk. This
is similar to the deal Kasparov should have cut with Shirov, if he was a person of honour.

If the challenger agreed to play for zero money that was his business,
and indeed Bogo made nothing from the match, and would have made nothing
even if he won.

The smallest prize fund was the one for Lasker-Schlechter because that
was all Schlecter could raise - and Austria wasn't a good place for
raising funds. Fundraising in that era was all about who got title
shots and who didn't.

Do you know the size of the prize fund? For the match with Tarrasch,
which was of full length, Lasker got 11,500 marks, according to Kasparov.

Marshall got a match for only a thousand dollars, but that was doubtless because Lasker knew he'd win that one.

Maroczy never got his match with Lasker, being unable to raise the 2500
required. He lost interest in chess and you can see his retrospective
rating drop significantly in a time when he should have been in his
prime, only to rise again when he decided he wanted to continue playing,
even if the championship was out of reach.

This also was one of two things that cost Kashdan his US title. He was
clearly stronger than Marshall in the early 1930s, but couldn't raise
the required five grand (or four grand, the Marshall club volunteered to
put up the last grand) in the depression. By the time Marshall finally
gave up the title Reshevsky and Fine were on the scene. And the only
time Kashdan outpaced those the title was stolen by an insane TD, of
course.

Reuben Fine was invited to the 1948 World Championship
Match-Tournament

Reshevsky, Fine, and Euwe were also invited to the 1950 candidates in Budapest. Cold war politics prevented this, but they were again invited
to the Zuricch 53 event. Reshevsky and Euwe accepted.

but declined as he was in a conflict between the M-T

and doing his psychiatric residency.

Actually he was finishing his PhD. in psychology. He never qualified as
a psychiatrist. That would have meant real work.

On balance I think he made the

right choice.

Of course he didn't. He became a Freudian psychologist and wrote all
kinds of nonsense. He was a visiting professor at several universities
but seems never to have been offered a tenure track position. He'd have
done the world far more good as a chess player, or for that matter a
dock worker.

Or as has been observed:

"When Fine switched his major interest from chess to psychoanalysis, the result was a loss for chessrCoand a draw, at best, for psychoanalysis.
Many psychologists, some Freudians included, now believe that the sexual symbolism in chess is vastly overdrawn."

Read his comments on Morphy and see if you can keep a straight face.

Reinfeld noted that while Fine recognized logical fallacies in the
arguments of others, and delighted in pointing them out, he happily
adopted the same fallacies if he thought he could get away with it.
A perfect psychologist, in other words.

And if he'd stayed in chess his later books wouldn't have been as bad as
they are. I've one of his books which is mostly written about 1948, and
is very good, with additions about 1975, which are terrible. I suspect
that income from books was very important to him.


William Hyde
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 19:12:24 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

"When Fine switched his major interest from chess to psychoanalysis, the >result was a loss for chessrCoand a draw, at best, for psychoanalysis.
Many psychologists, some Freudians included, now believe that the sexual >symbolism in chess is vastly overdrawn."

I doubt many players exchange queens just so they can fondle them :)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.chess.misc

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 19:12:24 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

"When Fine switched his major interest from chess to psychoanalysis, the
result was a loss for chess|ore4rCYand a draw, at best, for psychoanalysis. >> Many psychologists, some Freudians included, now believe that the sexual
symbolism in chess is vastly overdrawn."

I doubt many players exchange queens just so they can fondle them :)

You just wrote a psychology paper on chess!

P.S. I anyone thinks I'm being rough on Fine and others of his ilk,
believe me I'm not being rough enough. I haven't even cited Peter
Medawar on psychoanalysis.

William Hyde
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2