Introduction: The
Notion of Brilliance and Winning a Won Game
"Brilliancy in chess is usually
associated with some kind of significant sacrifice
of material in return for a long term attack on the
king. The
sacrificed material will typically be a piece
for a pawn or two, or a queen for a few pieces
which don’t quite add up to 9 points, or a
long term exchange sacrifice or pawn sacrifice. Less
dramatic or more dramatic material sacrifices may
occur, but the notion of brilliance is centered around
initiating a surprising (and usually aggressive)
concept on the chessboard which takes the game down
a certain course. The player who is
awarded with the brilliancy prize is usually one
who has played with significant imagination, innovation,
and has taken some risks to effect his ideas. ... If
the opponent (or defender) finds a way to defend,
a way to exploit material advantage, or a way
to return the material to obtain an advantage, then
the brilliancy has failed. No doubt, for every 100
attempts at achieving brilliancy there are 99 refutations
which prevent labeling the game or effort as 'brilliant.' In
other words, brilliancy does not come easily and that
is why Mr. Paul M. Albert, Jr., has been able to
offer his generous Brilliancy Prizes at the U.S.
Championships ... since 1983."
"In some sense technique is a
subset of brilliance. Brilliance
presumes correctness. ... "
"...
brilliance, to some extent is dependent on excellent,
even brilliant defense by the opponent. So we
can even say that it takes two players to create a
brilliant game. The
most brilliant game may be viewed as the one which
involves excellent play by both sides, tremendous
resistance, blow by blow counterplay and ultimately
one side presides, or the game may even end in a
draw with the prize being shared by the two players."
"[winning a won game]
is the principal challenge which confronts every
chessplayer, but particularly defines master chess
play and above. A master is supposed to have
demonstrated skill at all phases of play – comfortable
in the challenges of opening play, able to negotiate
the tactical intricacies and strategical demands
of the middlegame, while being able to draw upon
sufficient knowledge and technique to win a won ending. Our
many years of experience studying and playing against
players at these levels (master and above) finds
that such perfect technique is usually lacking. Masters,
even grandmasters may be able to play some parts
of the game accurately, but it is still rare that
an entire game is played correctly. Again,
bear in mind that correctness here means not giving
an opponent any chances which may result in counterplay
or equalization of play. So, in some sense,
pure, correct play, nurturing an advantage from one
phase of play to another, minute as it may seem,
is a form of brilliance."
"... brilliant technique, even with
the assistance of a computer for analysis, may just
be enough, in itself, to deem a game brilliant. If
Fritz or a similar program couldn’t find a
defense or an improvement for the losing side, once
an advantage has been established, then the play
which resulted in victory may well have been brilliant. For
in the review of most games with computer assistance
I think that it is safe to say that computers find
errors which can be deemed “value changing”. That
is, they (computers) finds moves which weren’t
played and that could change wins to losses or draws."
"... the ideal most brilliant
game would be one that spans all three phases of
play: opening, middlegame, and ending. It will incorporate
opening theoretical content, superb, original, strategical
and/or tactical middlegame concepts, where there would
be chances for both sides but the ultimate winner emerges
with an advantage, and efficient endgame play resulting
in victory, or even holding a draw."
|
