self-valuings
But I only win because i don’t see them as such.
I win by seeing genealogies.
Everybody wants to be a discrete coherence. By taking that away from them, I gain the advantage. On good days, I estimate I play at 2100 level.
Even, as you know, my game being just one single convoluted structure. But it is not a testament to structure, it is a testament to building. I am proud of the thing I built. That takes something. I read something in the game. I will tire of it some day. But as of now, I feel a little bit like the man in Gay Science who has a thought.
I am also relatively convinced, not having seen more than 1 in 1000 examples of people using, not the same, but a similar structure, that it is in fact original.
Then, of course, you have Magnus. I watched one of his tournaments on lichess recently, and we were all flaberggasted at the absolute disdain for opening he displayd while demolishing top-10 world champions.
Hey, it is an honor to be insulted by such a man. Have you ever watched one? It is a privilege, no other word. Like watching Trump.
He does prove your self-valuing point though. There can be no genealogy in the chaos he creates. But then, from the chaos, suddenly a maddening self-valuing exists, on-coming like a freight-train, often from ridiculous cliffs. Omg.
I’m not saying I’m more right. If I look, I have probably been more astonished by self-valuings than genealogies. That is greatness displaying itself.
But who is the greedier, Jupiter or Saturn?
Another way to ask that: who takes more beatings?
But then… Can there be a more discrete self-valuing than Mike Tyson?
And yet, he became that by performing one of the most detailed genealogical studies of boxing ever undertaken.
People love to hate on Magnus, because he’s so messy, but onlike the old guard he always plays to win. When he is facing a worthy oponnent who is playing for a draw or in general not necessarily to win, you can smell the frustration. those are the ones he is likeliest to lose.
It’s like he has visions man, it’s…
I saw one once, I can’t even describe it. Holy Moley.
He was somewhere dee
Aw, I can’t do it. Jesus Christ. None of us watching will ever forget it.
Like look. I haven’t seen so many Fisher games. But when he does his unexpected crazy, you can always trace it back. Oh, THIS was what was happening. And that is the joy. But with Carlsen, You would have to trace back the entire history of chess. There is no THIS is what was happening. Just… Just THIS is what is happening. Barely.
The most common comment on that tournament was: what did I just see?
Like a tickle. Is a tickle ever truly there?
And BAM.
The noose is alredy tight and you didn’t even see it pulled over your head. Except it wasn’t Magnus pulling it. It was the entire history of Chess.
People that beat him, they don’t see his structures. They just smell his mood. They trace the unaccountable moment. It is a build-up like a movie, not a set-up like a strategy.
Nah, he can be traced. But only by economy, not by wit. Yes you do see hooks, you just could not ever possibly fathom what they will do. Smart players don’t wonder, they just fend.
Mark Twain once said there are two types of intelligence. The type that discourages, makes you feel like a fool, and the type that dazzles and encourages. Like it’s showing you the heights, rather than beating you with a clever trained sword.
Eisntein would have immediately understood his point. I think they had the same haircut, too.
People tend to prefer swords to cliffs. Mostly, because swords are easier.
That’s one reason they find rap offensive. “Hey, he’s not even TRYING to make me feel like shit!”
Blood thirsty bastards prefer strong opponents.
Yeah these are more significant as they run through time. A genealogy as a self-valuing through time.
But I don’t want to take away from the useful (valuable, beautiful) distinction.
I mostly want to be an attack. But sure, an attack has to be a claw, so a coherence.
Im just approaching 1500 in blitz now and thats very satisfying. Actual chess is being played sometimes, rather than stacking of ugly errors.