|
:: Prologue || Foreword :: What if it were somehow possible to transcend time and space? What if one could hear tales of distant generations from far-away lands, to harvest their wisdom, discard their folly, to somehow transport that knowledge back to this moment, now, and harness it for one’s personal glory? What if…?
Carl Jung idolized symbols. He often spoke of symbols in the same tones one might expect a Buddhist to use when referencing a bodhisattva who seeks to attain Nirvana. To him, symbols were a mysterious, mystical force that live on throughout the ages. To quote the great man himself,
“There is a thinking in primordial images, in symbols which are older than the historical man, which are inborn in him from the earliest times, eternally living, outlasting all generations, still make up the groundwork of the human psyche. It is only possible to live the fullest life when we are in harmony with these symbols; wisdom is a return to them.” –Carl Jung Certain symbols or motifs, certain personalities or archetypes will appear from culture to culture and from generation to generation. Many times the names of these archetypes change, but the underlying principles and design will remain the same.
On this presumption, this mini-series will analyze six archetypes that constantly rear their heads in gaming communities. The archetypal names will be contemporary and yet by the completion of this series the reader will find him- or herself awestruck by the timelessness of this story. The reader is urged to consider the facts and anecdotes presented herein at a deeper-than-surface level as in so-doing the true eeriness of this tale shall emerge.
|
“I have long understood that losing always comes with the territory when you wander into the gambling business, just as getting crippled for life is an acceptable risk in the linebacker business. They both are extremely violent sports, and pain is part of the bargain. Buy the ticket, take the ride.” –Hunter S. Thompson :: The Gambler || Kyrix and the Modenese School :: In the middle of October, 2010, Han “Kyrix” Joon emerged as a volatile force in the second open season hosted by GomTV (now GomEXP) utilizing a style criticized by Dan “Artosis” Stemkoski and others in the community for being too aggressive. Determined to disprove his doubters, Kyrix tore through the ranks of unsuspecting GSL Open Season 2 hopefuls, ultimately earning fifth place overall and defeating such luminaries as HongUn, AcE, and Ensnare before being eliminated by Lee “MarineKing” Jung Hoon in what many regard as the best match of the tournament.
This begs the question: what is this style held in such varying regard by members of the community? Speedlings and banelings.
Essentially, every game, Kyrix would hit with speedlings and banelings. The timing varied; the economy varied; the amount of production behind the attack varied. Only the composition mattered, praying that his opponent had some form of weakness, had cut some corner that could be exploited. If not, his attack would be crushed. At such time, Kyrix would take another base before readying the next leg of his attack: more zerglings and banelings, reinforced only by extra larva and a (slightly) better economy.
This playstyle was a hail mary: a prayer to some unknown Xel’naga god that his opponent had not made tanks or other AoE. Other gaming communities have terms for this type of play. In fact, “hail mary” is a Football reference to indicate a certain risky play, itself referring to a Catholic prayer. To “all-in” in StarCraft is to perform a move that, if it fails, will be impossible to recover from–and yet, the term originates from StarCraft’s ugly twin-sister Poker.
Chess, too, has had a history of gamblers. There was an entire school founded on the principles expunged by Kyrix and his ideological soulmate Gioachino Greco. This school of thought emphasized the rapid development of pieces (the equivalent of short-term teching [Metabolic Boost + Baneling Nest] before an attack in StarCraft 2) as opposed to pawn structure (equivalent to economy). This made their games relatively short, open, and subject to a myriad array of tactical considerations focused on gaining material or outright checkmating your opponent early on.
Oftentimes, players would trade pieces (taking an opponent’s piece knowing yours will be taken in the next turn), forcing engagements that didn’t have to happen. Like Kyrix, they too had a preferred opener–instead of Speedling-Baneling, they enjoyed the Italian Game, which sacrifices long-term advantage for more immediate power–and which put black into a position where a counter-attack was the only option.
This school of thought was one of the first to emerge with the advent of what is now the standard Chess ruleset. Like Kyrix, early in the history of their respective games, these Modenese masters advocated short games characterized by extreme aggression. Like Kyrix, their favored style was eventually abandoned in favor of more viable long-term options like the Ruy Lopez–yet, like Kyrix, they mark an early, exciting, volatile chapter of their game’s history.
|
“You see, this profession is filled to the brim with unrealistic |||||||||||||. |||||||||||||| who thought their ||| would age like wine. If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does. If you mean it gets better with age, it don’t. ” -Marsellus Wallace, Pulp Fiction :: The Turtle || IdrA and Francois-Andre Danican Philidor :: In life, it often seems there are actions–events so unique and powerful that they cannot be understood in relationship to anything else–and then there are reactions to that original event that can only be understood within the parasol of context. Action. Re-action. Newton explained it well. It is the proverbial rock thrown into the lake and the ripples that flow ever outward on the tides of time. Francois-Andrew Danican Philidor was one such ripple that became a tidal wave, immersing the entire world of chess in his strategic deluge–forever.
Philidor hailed from a prominent musical family. According to legend, it was while awaiting a royal visit at court that Philidor learned to play chess, which was often done to pass the time before a visit from the king (who enjoyed listening to the choir, hence Philidor’s presence). A generation or so after the Modenese era of chess, Philidor’s style is a direct response to the period that preceded him. By this time, the process of knowledge filtration (academic Reaganomics) had ensured that a majority of his opponents were using the Italian style, in much the same way that players like BitByBit would succeed to Kyrix’s throne.
In this era of constant aggression, Philidor’s route to success was clear: defense. It was not the most impressive, exciting, or flashy style, but, he contended, it was the best. This style advocated a strong, self-sufficient pawn structure (akin to droning hard) and to use that structure to hold the center of the board (akin to expanding a lot). Put simply: Philidor developed the small, seemingly insignificant stuff for long-term advantages which reminds this author of a certain Zerg superstar met many moons ago: Greg “Idra” Fields. Throughout his StarCraft 2 career, even in his hayday at the top of his game, Idra received complaints about his playstyle being “boring” or “repetitive.” He focused on essentials, which for a Zerg player is drones, drones, and then, some more drones.
Idra so advocated droning, to the utmost extreme at the end of his career, that he would oftentimes bait cheese out of otherwise-passive players due to his tendency to cut so many corners in the early game. This drone advantage exagerrated an already-significant production perk of Zerg: an ability to produce seven workers per hatchery per cycle in comparison to the one worker per base of other races. By quickly flooding three bases of drones, Idra made himself a tempting target for those seeking a quick victory. If he survived, Idra could quickly remax again and again, eventually overwhelming his enemies in true Swarm fashion.
Idra enjoyed a period of much success, living in Korea while competing in the GSL for many seasons, but such a safe playstyle became way too predictable for those dastardly Koreans who exploited this well-known weakness. In theory, Idra’s playstyle was textbook Zerg; in practice, however, as with any book, once you have read it cover-to-cover, the book slams shut.
Before his death, due to the political atmosphere of the time, Philidor’s familial wealth was either in decline or inaccessible to him. His final years were spent in England as a direct result of the French Revolution. He was forced to play chess to sustain his lifestyle instead of focusing on music that he loved but with which he was never very successful. He would often comment as to how he felt suppressed as a composer. This is an oddly reminiscent scenario, as at the end of his career, Idra was quoted as saying much the same thing.
Like Idra, Philidor was criticized for being more “instructive than correct,” but this was after his death, at a time he could clearly no longer accept this challenge, so we may never know. This could perhaps be attributed to the jealousy great men inevitably inspire. Or perhaps the Turtle, like his namesake, simply took too long to get where he was going.
“For the last two months, Philidor had been kept alive merely by art, and the kind attentions of an old and worthy friend. On Monday last, Mr. Philidor the celebrated chess player, made his last move, into the other world.” –Howard Staunton
|
“When I hit that castle it didn’t even shake, so if someone else can come along and tear the whole thing down, I really need to go and train.” -Goku :: The Gentleman-Child || qxc and Adolf Anderssen :: Philidor made significant contributions to chess during his lifetime. He was clearly one of the best players of his time, but for one reason or another his style did not really catch on until 1850 with Wilhelm Steinitz. This is not Steinitz’s story, however; this is a tale of the century divide between Philidor and Steinitz.
People have many different responses when it comes to a new idea. If it’s a fun, exciting idea, it might catch on rather quick. These ideas are often firecrackers, filled with explosive energy yet possessing a meager lifespan. A shooting star sure is pretty, but doesn’t last long. Some less fabulous ideas come along, garnering less of a cult-following immediately but eventually withstanding the tests of time. Players who grew up idealizing and studying the Modenese masters never truly relinquished these beliefs, despite having witnessed the efficacy of Philidor’s style. These players would then pass these beliefs on to their own students, students who, unlike their masters, will have been exposed to such defensive play styles and theories at an early stage of development. This creates the strange, transitional amalgamation referred to as the “Romantic-era” of chess.
Many Romantic players had abandoned the Italian Game opener in favor of the Ruy Lopez. This opener, while still aggressive, offers much more long-term viability than the more-explosive Italian Game. This is a nod towards Philidor, a sacrificial acknowledgment that defense can and does occur. But because people were so indoctrinated into the minds of the Modenese masters, this acknowledgment was usurped by community-made rules external to the game itself. It was considered unsportsmanlike to decline a gambit, to play a defensive game. It was more highly-regarded at this time to lose “with style” than to win with defense. “It’s more fun this way” is what a Romantic-era player might claim, seeking to convince a playmate to join in, unconsciously implying the game is not good enough if Philidor’s principles are permitted.
Because of players’ insistence in accepting gambits regardless of consequences, pawn structures, if maintained at all, were open, flimsy things that a strong breeze might knock over. An open game is one where the lines–rows, columns, or diagonals–are not broken by immobile pawns. This increases the strength of long-range pieces such as rooks and bishops, emphasizing tactical play to gain position or material. Some tactics favored by these players are forks, skewers and discoveries, moves that severely limit an opponent’s options in an effort to make the opponent’s next move more predictable.
One player from this era is Adolf Anderssen, most famous for his Immortal Game against Lionel Kieseritzky and the Evergreen Game against Jean Dufresne. In the Evergreen Game, Anderssen trades recklessly without regard to inherent piece values or pawn structure. With a series of key counter-attacks, Anderssen sacrifices additional pieces in rapid succession which ultimately earns him a narrow victory.
This game gets its name from Steinitz, who called it the “Evergreen in Anderssen’s laurel wreath,” signifying this as Anderssen’s crowning achievement. Remember, winning with style is more highly-prized than winning from a well-structured positional game. This Evergreen concept, representing eternal youth, struck this author as both odd and analagous to today’s StarCraft 2. First, it is odd to think of an archetype like the Gentleman as eternally young but at second glance makes sense: Romantic chess players experienced massive upheaval early in their careers, at relatively young ages. Also, it is newer, often younger players that enjoy changing rules they dislike. It is even more profound that it is Steinitz, the man credited with tearing down the dying castle that was Romantic chess, who offers this symbolism. Chess’s growth into a mature sport had been delayed nearly a century, stuck in its adolescence, itself forever young as a result of men like Anderssen and Dufresne. Was this a compliment or insult? Either way, it seems quite the barbed comment towards Anderssen and those who supported him. Nonetheless, late in life, Anderssen, who was a fairly charismatic guy, was considered an elder statesmen of sorts for chess, often turned to for his advice and commentary.
That, dear friends, is a lot about chess. It is certain that the reader must wonder by now how this all relates to StarCraft. Bear with this article just a moment more and all will grow clear. What player, specifically foreigner, is known to this day for his high-level competition in addition to public relations, casting and coaching? This man is always high-energy, even earning such comments from Shaun “Apollo” Clark as “[I am] not as excited as you are” and “I know you did a lap around the desk. I had to sit you down, put your headset on for you, wipe your mouth a bit…”
Kevin “qxc” Riley. Known as “the Bandanna Terran” due to his near-constant appearance, qxc is the ideal gentleman archetype. First, he is clearly one of the more charismatic foreigners, maintaining a respectable following despite little success in the last few years. At his peak, however, qxc was to be feared. Participating in the GSTL, qxc, a member of one of the lowest-ranked teams in the event and a foreigner to boot all-kills the best Korean team in the world at the time, Incredible Miracle, defeating top-notch players like MVP in the process.
This would turn out to be his Evergreen Game, with qxc offering a well-deserved victory ceremony to commemorate the occasion: the kamehameha wave.
At twenty-four years of age, trumping this author by only ten months, qxc would still have been only a twinkle in his father’s eye when the kamehameha wave first aired on Japanese television. For him, like me, this show would have been a staple growing up. Dragon Ball Z was everywhere. This very ceremony, chosen in the heat of the moment by qxc, hearkens back to days of his youth–the Evergreen in his laurel wreath.
From his college-esque appearance (bandanna and all!) to his love of cosplaying Jedi, qxc displays clear appreciation for the awesomeness of his childhood, not unlike early Romantics meditating upon memories of their Modenese masters. qxc’s style is also very much like that aspired-to by the Romantics. He loves harassment, drops in particular, to draw his opponents into key positions then exploiting weaknesses opened elsewhere. Oftentimes he would drop in multiple locations at once to test his opponent’s multi-tasking.
In addition to all of his other endeavors, qxc, with the drive and energy to make a five-year old green, produces UMS maps designed to help train certain skillsets critical to top-level StarCraft play. These games include his build order tester and “So You Think You Can Micro?” Anderssen, too, seemed to possess all of the energy of a ferret surviving only on Red Bull. Even in his old age, Anderssen published books of chess problems and tactics, mind games to challenge both his students and contemporaries.
The creative spirit of the ever-young can never die, rivaled only by its admiration for offense, chaos and destruction.
|
|
“Thou smell of mountain goat.” –William Shakespeare :: The Troll || Naniwa and Howard Staunton :: At the polar opposite end of the spectrum, in stark contrast to the childlike archetype, lies the Troll, a super-serious provocateur who advances the game in a way that only he can. Enter renowned former Warcraft 3 player Johann “Naniwa” Lucchesi. This guy is a superstar, dominating the foreign scene in the void left by Stephano’s retirement, but he also wished to go to University. For him, like Ilyes “Stephano” Satouri, the two had to be mutually-exclusive. This motivational schism would play a hidden role throughout Naniwa’s StarCraft 2 career, slowly poisoning the well.
Before that, at least before it became apparent, Naniwa’s legacy was cemented by his innovative playstyle. He played Protoss, a race that at that time felt very stagnant. In the sense of bringing new life to the game, Naniwa was the foreign hope. One particularly devastating all-in he developed, the Immortal-Zealot, comes to this anxious Zerg author’s mind. And yet, despite any accidental good Naniwa may have done for the game, he is also extremely skilled at self-sabotage. As early as 2010, Naniwa was ruffling feathers; he was released from MeetYourMakers for showing up late to matches in ESL, resulting in his disqualification and ban from the tournament.
Naniwa would often be seen as a sore sport. At MLG Raleigh 2011, for example, one fan approached Mr. Lucchesi to congratulate him on a well-played series against then-tyrant Nestea and console him on his eventual loss. Naniwa notably told that fan that he didn’t care and didn’t want to “**** talk about it.”
At a later date in GSL’s Blizzard Cup against this same player, Naniwa would throw his match (which he couldn’t win; it was being played for ranking in the tournament, and could affect later matches; in short, a very important match for the tournament but one which meant absolutely nothing for Naniwa personally) with a probe rush out of frustration at his loss. This would result in the removal of his Code S spot in the upcoming tournament. Naniwa would often cite tournament organizers, tournament organization, as well as general game balance, as primary reasons for his losses.
As of the date of this article, Naniwa’s last major action in StarCraft 2 was IEM Katowice, where he faced Choi “Polt” Seong Hun. Naniwa had proxied a gateway, earning a response from the crowd. Polt, in response to the crowd or out of some sixth StarCraft 2-spidey sense, scouts the proxy and responds appropriately.
“xD so fun to play without soundproofing.”
Naniwa would forfeit his later matches, pack up his stuff, and walk away, head bowed low amidst the boos of the crowd. In a bizarre twist of fate: IEM Katowice was run by the ESL, that very same organization that originally banned Naniwa, resulting in his dismissal from MeetYourMakers! And as one might of course expect, Naniwa’s antics at Katowice anticipated Alliance’s ax.
This article seems like a fairly negative depiction of The Dragonslayer. But it is this author’s position that not only are players like this an unavoidable part of the game, but that their behavior, nay, their role, is in fact beneficial. StarCraft 2 had reached a lull. The people wanted to be stirred up a bit. The community needed controversy, the kind that only The King in the North could provide.
Now, is this to say that the community is toxic, fostering, even benefitting from such players? No more than any other. Every community yearns for excitement; every community needs a villain to combat each hero. Take Chess’s Howard Staunton for example. A literary figure, editor of many newspapers and Chess columns, publisher of several magazines and a Shakespearean scholar to boot, Staunton seemed to see himself as God’s gift to Chess. The Chess community, or so his behavior suggested, was lucky to be blessed by his presence.
Staunton deserves his place in history. He was one of the founding players of the English school; he propagated Nathaniel Cook’s design for a Chess set and received royalties for that throughout his life, a design that is still revered as the best to this day dubbed the “Staunton set.” Staunton was a great organizer. He set up some of the first international Chess tournaments and was instrumental in financing some of the world’s best. But as a player himself, he was not very sportsmanly, unlike his contemporary Adolf Aderssen. While a strong player himself, when he did lose, as all are wont to do at some point, he would display an extreme temper, often using his newspaper column to discredit his opponentss, excuse his losses, and to puff himself up. In later years, Staunton would use his literary obligations as an excuse to dodge games. In one notable example, he used his editorial to lament that the American prodigy Paul Morphy was so far away, because he (Staunton) would like so very much to play him. The following paragraph was written on April 14, 1858, in the Illustrated London News, a much more colorful reply than the one he addressed to the New Orleans Chess Club directly:
“We have been favoured with a copy of the defi which the friends of Mr. Paul Morphy, the Chess champion of the United States, have transmitted to Mr. Staunton. The terms of this cartel are distinguished by extreme courtesy, and with one notable exception, by extreme liberality also. The exception in question, however, (we refer to the clause which stipulates that the combat shall take place in New Orleans !) appears to us utterly fatal to the match ; and we must confess our astonishment, that the intelligent gentlemen who drew up the conditions did not themselves discover this. Could it possibly escape their penetration, that if Mr. Paul Morphy, a young gentleman without family ties or professional claims upon his attention, finds it inconvenient to anticipate, by a few months, an intended voyage to Europe, his proposed antagonist, who is well known for years to have been compelled, by laborious literary occupation, to abandon the practice of Chess beyond the indulgence of an occasional game, must find it not merely inconvenient, but positively impracticable, to cast aside all engagements, and undertake a journey of many thousand miles for the sake of a Chess-encounter? Surely the idea of such, a sacrifice is not admissible for a single moment. If Mr. Morphy?for whose skill we entertain the liveliest admiration?be desirous to win his spurs among the Chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his purposed visit, next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, and Germany, and in Russia, many champions whose names must be as household words to him, ready to test and do honour to his prowess.” –Howard Staunton
Hearing that Staunton’s sole objection was that it must take place in New Orleans, Morphy travels to England eleven months ahead of schedule, but after much stalling and delay on the part of Staunton, moves on. Staunton had begged for more time to prepare, desperately afraid of losing face to this young upstart from New Orelans. Morphy, after traveling across Europe playing some of the world’s finest, returns to London hoping to match at long last the great Howard Staunton. After much correspondence and difficulties with preliminaries (think tournament format, and its prize pool [stakes]), in a final attempt to secure his match against the masterful Howard Staunton, publishes an open letter to Staunton and all who concern themselves with matters of Chess:
“I beg leave to state that I had addressed a copy of this letter to the editors of the Illustrated London News, Bell? Life in London, the Era, the Field, and the Sunday Times; being most desirous that our true position should no longer be misunderstood by the community at large. I again request you to fix a date for our commencing the match. [...] Since my arrival in Paris I have been assured by numerous gentlemen, that the value of those stakes can be immediately increased to any amount, but, for myself, personally, reputation is the only incentive I recognize.” –Paul Morphy
Ultimately the match never happened. Among all his “reasons” for this, Staunton blames Shakespeare. He was a famous scholar on the work of William Shakespeare and had largely abandoned Chess in its pursuit during his later life. This, it seems, was due in large part to an inability to travel. On several occassions, traveling for important Chess matches had rendered Staunton physically unsound–or perhaps this was yet another excuse. At this point in time, it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. Like Naniwa, though, Staunton felt like his chosen game was tearing him away from more important academic pursuits. This is evident at times from the way he speaks with regard to the subject among many other factors:
“A match at Chess or cricket may be a good thing in its way, but none but a madman would for either forfeit his engagements and imperil his professional reputation. [...] The result is not, perhaps, what either you or I desired, as it will occasion disappointment to many; but it is unavoidable, and the less to be regretted, since a contest, wherein one of the combatants must fight under disadvantages so manifest as those I should have to contend against, after many years retirement from practical Chess, with my attention absorbed and my brain overtaxed by more important pursuits, could never be accounted a fair trial of skill.” –Howard Staunton
One can nearly eavesdrop on either Staunton’s or Naniwa’s internal dialogue, listing all of the opportunity costs of preparing for an upcoming match. This internal conflict would then manifest in both players careers’ in a multitude of ways, but beneath it all: fear of failure behind a furious facade. No one could put this into better words than the esteemed Mr. Staunton himself. Bear in mind, when the above was written, Staunton was 48 years old and had been playing Chess longer than Morphy, 21, had been alive. It is now October 1858 and three months have passed since Morphy arrived in London for the match that Staunton counter-proposed in reply to Morphy’s initial challenge in February 1858. Morphy would remain in Europe until March or April of 1959, but to no avail.
Staunton organized some of the most prestigious tournaments of his era. He has two different openers named after him, and founded a school of thought about the game itself. At its heights, his Chess column reached thousands, perhaps millions of people. No one is better at stirring up excitment and competition, better at getting the crowd’s attention, than the Troll. For better or worse, he is the heart and spirit of competitive gaming.
|
“Morphy flashed upon the chess world like a meteor, and disappeared almost as suddenly as he came. His sad fate and untimely end were due to other causes than chess, as his friends all know.” -W.J.A. Fuller .:: Pride & Sorrow || Stephano Meets Paul Morphy ::. There once was a young, crazy-haired boy with an innate, natural talent for StarCraft 2. His name was Ilyes Satouri but peopled called him “Stephano.” He began as a mildly-successful WarCraft 3 player, a Human user. He favored this race due to its reliance on inexpensive units (footmen, militia, et cetera) and the necessity of an early-game economic advantage to sustain its playstyle. These, to him, drew clear parallels to Zerg of StarCraft 2 and hence his later decision to join the Swarm.
Within one month of buying the game, he competes in a 16-player invite-only tournament for the best players in France. This was eOSL Winter 2010–emphasis on Winter. Previous to this, he had had solid placements in a number of French tournaments, notably fourth place at the opening event of the French Masters Series 2010-2011 season. His meteoric rise to success would not end here, however, as he would quickly go on to beat players like Sjow, Naama, Kas and ClouD in Go4SC2′s 2011 Real 100 Invitational. This tournament included the 16 top-ranked players in Go4SC2, as of May 2011-meerly six months after Stephano had purchased the game! What factors contribute to his in-game talent? As revealed in an interview with Rachel Quirico and Anna Prosser, he doesn’t have a clue! Further, in another interview with Rachel, he reveals he didn’t practice much for IPL3.
Another talented gamer who seemed to possess some born-in gift was Paul Morphy, a child chess prodigy. He learned the game by watching his father and uncle play. At a very young age, when no one knew that he knew which ways the pieces move let alone complicated chess strategy, he revealed in a game abandoned as a draw, that in fact the uncle should have won. The intrigue this provoked within his family quickly grew to bewilderment as he reset the board to a key moment and instructed his uncle in the proper series of moves to achieve checkmate. He almost immediately became recognized as the best player in New Orleans. As one anecdote has it, Union General Winfield Scott, Old Fuss and Feathers, came into town (riding on a pony) and during his first night’s stay requested an evening of play with a strong local player.
After dinner, the pieces were set up and a small, effeminate boy of only nine was brought in. General Scott, being a prideful man, was immediately insulted, believing someone to be pranking him. Someone would explain to him over the course of several minutes that the boy was a chess prodigy who might tax his skill. Morphy beat this esteemed general, responsible for the Anaconda Plan which secured New Orleans as a Union port, twice with little effort, announcing forced mate after only six moves. General Scott refused to play any further games and immediately retired for the night. He would hurriedly leave town the next morning.
A few years later, at the behest of his father, Morphy would play chess champion Johann Lowenthal. This champion understandably underestimated his opponent but after only 12 moves he had fully realized his mistake. After this initial loss, Lowenthal lost a second time before drawing Morphy in the third.
For the next seven years, no one in the chess world hears from Morphy. His initial ripples are followed by absolute silence as he pursues a law degree at Spring Hill College and then the University of Loisiana. However, graduating at only 20, he was not yet old enough to practice law and thus found himself with a plethora of time. His uncle urged him to participate in the invite-only first American Chess Congress of which he was at first wary but ultimately consented to. Here he defeated chess luminaries like Louis Paulsen and Alexander Beaufort Meek, earning the title Chess Champion of the United States.
The American chess association offered a challenge to any player in Europe–because even then there existed a cross-realm rivalry–to contest a match with Morphy for any where from $2,000 to $5,000 a side. The problem? The proposed forum was New York, which at least one European found objectionable:
The Illustrated London News, Dec. 26, 1857 “The best players in Europe are not chess professionals, but have other and more serious advocations, their interests of which forbid such an expenditure of time as required for a voyage to the United States and back again. [...] If the battle were to be London or Paris, there can be little doubt, we apprehend, that a European champion could be found.” –Howard Staunton
There can be little doubt that by “chess champion” Staunton meant himself, implying that should Morphy travel to Europe, the two could then compete. Morphy had a trip planned for Europe that next year, during which he, on several ocassions, attempted to have a match against Staunton to no avail. However, Morphy did get to compete against a host of other chess greats while in England and after crossing the English channel, seeking new opponents on the Continent. He found such in Germans Daniel Harrwitz and Adolf Anderssen.
At forty years of age, seven years after Staunton’s prestigious 1851 tournament where he was declared the best player in the world, Anderssen had the opportunity to play a series of official and unofficial matches against Morphy. Anderssen’s fourth and fifth decade were by far his most successful, due in no small part to Morphy’s tutelage. Remember, Anderssen was hailed as chess champion of the world at the time he wrote: “I consider Morphy the finest player who ever existed. He is far superior to any now living.”
Publishing houses like to print Morphy’s tactical games, for obvious reasons. Games where he might sacrifice his queen or other important material for a positional brilliancy leading to checkmate a few short moves later. Judging from the volume of printed games with that formula, Morphy’s day-to-day style must be similar. False! He was much more conservative than that. It is popular myth that Morphy was limited to one or two ideas in his play. He was a universalist, able to perform any style as deemed by a given situation. The problem, then, is the situation Morphy repeatedly finds himself: baited into games with significantly weaker people; a grandmaster stuck playing gold leaguers because platinum doesn’t exist yet.
It is said (by some; others, like Fischer, vehemently dispute this) that Morphy could not hold a candle to modern players, that he appeared as good as he was in a vacuum of sub-standard Stauntons and Steinitzs. This is a discussion for another time but it is important to understand that by all accounts these early chess “masters” were really, really baaad. That is why it is so often misrepresented that Morphy’s style is limited to high stake gambits. His goal was to eliminate bad opponents quickly in anticipation of a better match!
The young effeminate Stephano and his stuffed dog Cujo have also been accused of stylistically being one trick ponies, as well. Different styles; different times; same accusation. The best-studied of these is easily his 12-minute ZvP Roach max, where the Zerg is able to quickly reach what is often twice the army supply of his opponent before utilizing Sauron-style reinforcement lines to further bash down your opponent’s walls or provide a contain while teching and expanding.
Stephano did not perform miraculous never-seen-before timing attacks like this by chance or because he was terrified of his opponent in a macro game. No. It was boredom. He was ready for a more challenging match-up so he’d advance as quickly as he could. It was actually because his macro was so good that he was abe to pull this off–even his contempoarries had a hard time executing this builid initially! Another build Stephano popularized near the end of Wings of Liberty was Infestor-Broodlord. In fact, at the end of Wings of Liberty it was widely acknowledged that ZvP was broken by that composition and by Protoss’ subsequent reliance on the Archon-toilet to compensate.
Stephano loved to flirt controversy. Ever a fan of the champagne shower, his primary concern often seemed not to be the tournament but the barcraft after. At one point, he was arrested for underaged drinking, and another for being too inebriated in public. This liquor-laden lifestyle lauded by Stephano is the same lifestyle so vicioulsy condemned by Morphy. Chess players who wagered on their matches were viewed no different than pub-patronizing poker players with whom Morphy wished to distance himself. At first glance this demure portrayal of Morphy seems a stark contrast to the partyboy Stephano but consider this ruse: Over 450 recorded games exist from Morphy’s short career, including off-hand games and games-at-odds, games which even today no one would bother recording despite easy access to a variety of means to do so. Simply put, Paul Morphy, like Stephano, was an exhibitionist, albeit far better at concealing it.
Stephano, too, enjoyed two brief years in the spotlight. He’d always stated that his goal was to make as much money as possible from StarCraft before going to university to pursue medicine. He originally pledged one year to this pursuit but due to his wild success stayed for a second year. He has since retired but still shows up in tournaments on occassion. Like Morphy, or so it sometimes seems, Stephano does not view gaming as a reasonable stand-alone career. This is expressed in outrageously fun but not quite professional behavior such as dancing and flipping during tournaments; giving interviews inebriated; failing to show up to scheduled matches; failing to commit to contracts; and extreme partying. This refusal to take what is clearly an important aspect of one’s life seriously has been characterized by Dr. Reuben Fine, one of the best chess players of the 20th century-turned-psychologist as a refusal to take life seriously. One can see the at least-theoretical manifestations of this in both the party-driven Stephano and in Morphy’s later years.
The argument here is simple: despite any inherent talent, to become a champion requires considerable effort. This exerts an opportunity cost: time spent gaming is time not spent doing other things. Morphy emerged as a chess great on an international level at 20–therefore a significant percentage of his adolescent years must have been utilized within chess, despite a lack of recorded games.
In fact, no one is even sure the man ever once had sex, as his closest personal relations seem casual at best. This serves to illustrate a disconnect within Morphy’s perspective: he dedicated his biologically-prime years to two pursuits: becoming a lawyer and refining his chess game. The latter he did to perfection then dismissed as unworthy and refused to speak about thereafter. He also became a lawyer but was not successful because, he believed, people saw him as nothing more than a mere chess player.
“It was a deeply serious issue to him at the same time he had to go to great lengths to deny this repeatedly. When he became famous, his unconciously-determined protestations that chess was a mere game for him could no longer convince others.” –Dr. Reuben Fine
Morphy never found success as a lawyer. He ended up living mostly on his father’s inheritance as he admits to one journalist. In his final years, he would scrupulously dress for a walk, studying the pretty faces of passers-by in the afternoon, retire til the evening whence he would meet his mother for a short time before the opera. He never missed a theater performance until his death in his 40s, after his walk, in his bathtub which was surrounded by carefully-arranged women’s shoes. Curiously enough, the slim, hair-concious Stephano also has a bit of a history with women’s shoes as well, hand-modeling one of Anna Prosser’s high heels during an interview for Cyber Sports Network. With so many similarities between these two child-prodigies, who thrive on recognition while denying the importance of their achievements, Morphy’s legacy may serve as a lighthouse for Stephano, a beacon signalling danger to lost gaming vessels awash on stormy seas, struggling with the battle between societal obligation and personal agency. Whether it’s an affinity for purple and women’s shoes, a carefree affect, or some innate talent, there is no denying that these two men were titans in their chosen… erm… professions.
Sorry Morphy.
|
|
“It was an impressive achievement, of course, and a human achievement by the members of the IBM team, but Deep Blue was only intelligent the way your programmable alarm clock is intelligent. Not that losing to a $10 million alarm clock made me feel any better.” -Garry Kasparov .:: The Machine || NaDa Capablanca ::. Machines can range in complexity from an abacus to the latest Apple iPhone, from an hourglass to the antikythera mechanism. Machines are not complicated. Their designs can be, but the tasks they perform are not. The benefit of a machine is to quickly perform the mundane, much faster and more efficient than a human could, freeing that human to concentrate on bigger ideas that cannot be small-chunked into rudimentary tasks.
This is an important distinction: man versus machine. A machine can simulate complexity with a corresponding increase in the rate of calculations per second but this is an illusion. Increases in graphics processors have demonstrated a shift in emphasis from compelling gameplay to jamming as many hair follicles onto the protagonist’s arm as possible but this does not make it real. A realistic simulation but simulation nonetheless.
A machine can be taught arithmetic and perform calculations at astronomical rates but a machine cannot invent new mathematics describing universal consciousness or the human condition. Machines do not innovate; they replicate, constantly, consistently, until the end of time. In some circumstances, a machine can appear innovative. This illusion stems from perfect execution. A machine, which performs rudimentary tasks rapidly, will find and follow the most efficient route. Sometimes this most efficient route is foreign to human reasoning and appears innovative. It is in fact a direct and necessary consequence followed to its logical conclusion. Humans, unable to rival the machine in either speed or ability, hadn’t pushed the limits far enough.
Such is the case with Lee Yoon “NaDa” Yeol. He was the first player in Brood War to win two major starleagues simultaneously; Flash was the next person to do this, but not for another seven years! In 2003 he was given the nickname Grand Slammer due to his wild success that year.
Players also called him the “Genius Terran” due to what appeared to be his innovative strategies. In fact, NaDa only used one strategy regardless of the race he faced. Instead of caring about this or that composition or balance issue he focused on perfecting execution in a rapid manner.
His apm averaged at 400, completely unheard of at this time. He is largely responsible for the first shift towards perfect mechanics. For this reason he was nicknamed “the Machine.” Machines are consistent. No one punches an addition problem into a calculator and then second-guesses the accuracy of the machine. Human error perhaps but not the machine. NaDa earns this nickname in consistency as well, performing well in leagues until his father’s tragic death in 2005.
NaDa, though crushed by this loss, recovered enough to compete. After switching to Wings of Liberty, NaDa continued to display his consistency, competing in nine consecutive GSLs. He never dropped to Code A or played in an up-and-down match in the first GSL format. And yet despite his early success over a decade ago, NaDa hasn’t earned any major tournament wins since.
Chess is a game that has a healthy respect for machines. For decades different chess computers such as Deep Blue were pit against grandmasters with varying results. But long before IBM’s greatest minds programmed the aquatic abyss there lived a man known as “the Human Chess Machine.” This man played chess for ~29 years, was undefeated for eight of those, and in 1906 won 96% of his games. This man was Jose Raul Capablanca.
Some chess commentators have noted Capablanca’s lack of theory on the game. He did not subscribe to this school or that but rather focused on simple moves which safely developed his pieces. If his moves at times seemed odd it can only be assumed that it is for efficiency, the best move.
His speed was one of the most notable things about his play. Rather than calculate a given position, he would intuit the best position and then confirm it through calculation (much the way modern chess computers do). Remember a machine performs a simple objective very quickly. Capablanca played a simple style, easier to do rapidly. He repeatedly told students to disregard opener strategies or the mid-game in favor of learning late game positions. His idea was, of course, simple: if one knows all the possible late games, one can best calculate moves in the early- and midgames to achieve favorable positions. One must know a destination before one can plot a course to get there.
Today chess is a game accused of being rigged. In the immortal words of Bobby Fischer: “I consider the old chess is dying [...] it’s degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement.” A computer can calculate endless variants and then hold those variants in memory to intuit the best outcome for a given situation. There are a finite number of moves existing from initial position and this continues from every move thereafter–what Fischer referred to as “pre-arrangement.”
Capablanca was like this in many regards, working towards his calculated endgame with simple and intuitive machinations. But there are weaknesses to machines. They invariably follow identifiable patterns. Capablanca never forced engagements. He let his pieces develop naturally. So in 1927, Alexander Alekhine spotted and successfully exploited a weakness in Capablanca’s play: when in an inferior position (frequent against Capablanca) Alekhine would become scrappy, offering much resistance. Capablanca would never push his advantage, allowing Alekhine to recover.
“You will already have noticed how often Capablanca repeated moves, often returning to positions when he had had before. This is not lack of decisiveness or slowness but the employment of a basic endgame principle which is ‘do not hurry.’” -Alexander Kotov
Unfortunately, Alekhine recognized this as well and used it to his advantage. He relied on playing the game as efficiently as possible whereas Alekhine focused no playing Capablanca.
“When you sit down to play a game you should think only about the position but not about the opponent. Whether chess is regarded as a science, or an art, or a sport, all the same psychology bears no relation to it and only stands in the way of real chess.” -Jose Raul Capablanca
“For my victory over Capablanca I am indebted primarily to my superiority in the field of psychology. [...] For the chess struggle nowadays one needs a subtle knowledge of human nature.” -Alexander Alekhine
In other words, Alekhine states that mechanics alone are not enough. Awareness of the meta-game and your opponent’s tendencies are vital. His results speak for themself. This might be good advice to a younger NaDa whose 400 APM never quite secured him a GSL victory. His reliance on mechanics opposed to match-up, meta-game or composition would prove to be his downfall. NaDa, like Capablanca before him, was a powerhouse for a time but machine efficiency can never match human innovation.
“The ‘Chess Machine’ [...] revealed the great drawback of a machine: it had not sufficient flexibility to adapt itself to altered circumstances.” -Max Euwe
|
:: Aeternus Recurrentia :: It is a difficult distinction to decide whether the facts and stories presented within this article demonstrate some mystical form of eternal recurrence or is simply a manifestation of Jung’s archetypal symbolism. Whichever you accept, please do not dismiss lightly that patterns emerge within existence. What is a minute but sixty individual seconds? What is an hour but sixty individual minutes? Smaller cycles beget larger cycles and then the cycles repeat.
Draw your own conclusions. Find your own meaning.
Namaskar ♡
And only the enlightened can recall their former lives; for the rest of us, the memories of past existences are but glints of light, twinges of longing, passing shadows, disturbingly familiar, that are gone before they can be grasped, like the passage of that silver bird on Dhaulagiri. –Peter Matthiessen
Now, however long a time may pass, according to the eternal laws governing the combinations of this eternal play of repetition, all configurations that have previously existed on this earth must yet meet, attract, repulse, kiss, and corrupt each other again.
Circulus. Vitiosus. Deus. –Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Holy wall of text!!#@$~!
Now that I made that comment, I will proceed to read it all
|
The quote you attribute to Nietzsche is taken from Heinrich Heine and doctored onto Nietzsche's circulus vitiosus deus words taken out of context from a passage in BGE. You were either incredibly sloppy with your references and therefore with your research or you were trying to be purposefully misleading. Both possibilities cast a shadow on what you have just written.
|
One of the greatest posts I've ever read on TL, loved every single comparison. You've made the comparison of Chess-SC too easy for a simpleton like me, and I appreciate every word.
Ever since I found out about 3000 year old Chinese texts complaining about the wealth gap between the rich and the poor, I've developed a sense that history is bound to repeat itself to the end of time. This is another great example, and I will save these posts: so when I am interested in learning chess I can start by picking from these amazing styles
I would really love to hear which style/story you think is the best, or which one you mainly implement
He would often comment as to how he felt suppressed as a composer. This is an oddly reminiscent scenario, as at the end of his career, Idra was quoted as saying much the same thing.
Like Idra, Philidor was criticized for being more “instructive than correct,” but this was after his death, at a time he could clearly no longer accept this challenge, so we may never know. This could perhaps be attributed to the jealousy great men inevitably inspire. Or perhaps the Turtle, like his namesake, simply took too long to get where he was going.
What I get from this comparison: They both felt stifled because their play styles weren't given enough breathing room to be effective? Idra raged many a game because of early cheese. He never really got to have the game go the way he played, so in that sense he was the 'supressed composer', never hearing his beautiful symphony play out in real life.
.:: Pride & Sorrow || Stephano Meets Paul Morphy ::.In fact, no one is even sure the man ever once had sex, as his closest personal relations seem casual at best. This serves to illustrate a disconnect within Morphy’s perspective: he dedicated his biologically-prime years to two pursuits: becoming a lawyer and refining his chess game. The latter he did to perfection then dismissed as unworthy and refused to speak about thereafter. He also became a lawyer but was not successful because, he believed, people saw him as nothing more than a mere chess player. Show nested quote +“It was a deeply serious issue to him at the same time he had to go to great lengths to deny this repeatedly. When he became famous, his unconciously-determined protestations that chess was a mere game for him could no longer convince others.” –Dr. Reuben Fine Morphy never found success as a lawyer. He ended up living mostly on his father’s inheritance as he admits to one journalist. In his final years, he would scrupulously dress for a walk, studying the pretty faces of passers-by in the afternoon, retire til the evening whence he would meet his mother for a short time before the opera. He never missed a theater performance until his death in his 40s, after his walk, in his bathtub which was surrounded by carefully-arranged women’s shoes. Curiously enough, the slim, hair-concious Stephano also has a bit of a history with women’s shoes as well, hand-modeling one of Anna Prosser’s high heels during an interview for Cyber Sports Network. With so many similarities between these two child-prodigies, who thrive on recognition while denying the importance of their achievements, Morphy’s legacy may serve as a lighthouse for Stephano, a beacon signalling danger to lost gaming vessels awash on stormy seas, struggling with the battle between societal obligation and personal agency. Whether it’s an affinity for purple and women’s shoes, a carefree affect, or some innate talent, there is no denying that these two men were titans in their chosen… erm… professions. Sorry Morphy.
Reading this Stephano comparison with Morphy was absolutely wonderful, to the point of almost having tears. Being my favorite player of all time, I have a huge bias towards him, and finding the chess equivalent of a prodigy...I really appreciated this read man
But oh lord...I hope this section isn't foreshadowing Stephano's life into medicine(which was Murphy's law)....or he is in for a rough time LOL. Stephano read this and learn from past mistakes!!!
Show nested quote + “For my victory over Capablanca I am indebted primarily to my superiority in the field of psychology. [...] For the chess struggle nowadays one needs a subtle knowledge of human nature.” -Alexander Alekhine In other words, Alekhine states that mechanics alone are not enough. Awareness of the meta-game and your opponent’s tendencies are vital. His results speak for themself. This might be good advice to a younger NaDa whose 400 APM never quite secured him a GSL victory. His reliance on mechanics opposed to match-up, meta-game or composition would prove to be his downfall. NaDa, like Capablanca before him, was a powerhouse for a time but machine efficiency can never match human innovation. Show nested quote +“The ‘Chess Machine’ [...] revealed the great drawback of a machine: it had not sufficient flexibility to adapt itself to altered circumstances.” -Max Euwe
Was reading this story as if you were talking about Flash instead (sorry!) but he is just more relevant to me at this point in history. I'm not sure if he was completely machine like in BW, but right now he is very much Nada-DeepBlue-like. I just think of that loss to DRG with positioning the CC on the low ground and getting surprised by a 14 pool...I think he has relied on BW mechanics all too much in his transition, and desperately needs some of that "Romantic" flair from the likes of qxc/Anderseen
EDIT: + Show Spoiler +
This was fricken insane!
|
On November 01 2014 02:04 lantz wrote:Holy wall of text!!#@$~! Now that I made that comment, I will proceed to read it all
Lol I hope you enjoy
On November 01 2014 04:03 GERMasta wrote: The quote you attribute to Nietzsche is taken from Heinrich Heine and doctored onto Nietzsche's circulus vitiosus deus words taken out of context from a passage in BGE. You were either incredibly sloppy with your references and therefore with your research or you were trying to be purposefully misleading. Both possibilities cast a shadow on what you have just written.
Umm, both possibilities actually refer to the fact that this is not an article about Nietzsche or Heine. I saw it attributed to either person, but not being an expert in Philosophy or anything close to it, I went with the one that more people seemed to attribute it to. The meaning is more important than who wrote it. It's an idea, nothing more. I'd rather no one take what I say at face value, or as the Gospel truth. Do your own research and please point out what I can do better. Hopefully this encourages you to look deeper at all the topics I present, and I hope you have as much fun with it as I did!
On November 01 2014 09:13 firehand101 wrote: One of the greatest posts I've ever read on TL, loved every single comparison. You've made the comparison of Chess-SC too easy for a simpleton like me, and I appreciate every word. Thanks man. You made my day with this. I needed it. Thank you.
On November 01 2014 09:13 firehand101 wrote:Ever since I found out about 3000 year old Chinese texts complaining about the wealth gap between the rich and the poor, I've developed a sense that history is bound to repeat itself to the end of time. This is another great example, and I will save these posts: so when I am interested in learning chess I can start by picking from these amazing styles Heh. Not to go overboard on history repeating itself but... in 1067 AD William the Conqueror secured Britain in the Battle of Hastings. Hugh de Payens, one of his vassals stemming from that battle, will later co-found the Knights Templar, responsible for the Christian Crusades into Jerusalem and modern-day Iraq, Moslem nations.
In 2001, a Christian politician who is related by blood to the Templars will launch a crusade -- no matter the reason -- into this same part of the world, an invasion maintained to this day; the first Crusade lasted 3 years, the second 5. History repeats itself ad infinitum.
On November 01 2014 09:13 firehand101 wrote:I would really love to hear which style/story you think is the best, or which one you mainly implement I tend to favor Fischer in considering pre-arrangement the death of chess. Until Morphy, all of these guys were trash players lol. Your average ten year old today would stomp most of the chess greats, especially those listed here prior to Morphy. The reason is pre-arrangement. The board is set up the same now as it was for the Modenese masters. The game itself cannot be patched. New maps aren't released. So eventually everything that it is possible to know about the game is known and it becomes a process of memorization and front-loading a student at the very beginning. If I had to recommend something though, as white I recommend the King or Queen's gambit, and as black, the Sicilian Defense.
On November 01 2014 09:13 firehand101 wrote: What I get from this comparison: They both felt stifled because their play styles weren't given enough breathing room to be effective? Idra raged many a game because of early cheese. He never really got to have the game go the way he played, so in that sense he was the 'supressed composer', never hearing his beautiful symphony play out in real life.
That's far more poetic than I could have ever wrote
On November 01 2014 09:13 firehand101 wrote:Reading this Stephano comparison with Morphy was absolutely wonderful, to the point of almost having tears. Being my favorite player of all time, I have a huge bias towards him, and finding the chess equivalent of a prodigy...I really appreciated this read man But oh lord...I hope this section isn't foreshadowing Stephano's life into medicine(which was Murphy's law)....or he is in for a rough time LOL. Stephano read this and learn from past mistakes!!! Lol yeah. Stephano is my favorite player of all time I sleep in a hat he signed for me at MLG Raleigh
On November 01 2014 09:13 firehand101 wrote: Was reading this story as if you were talking about Flash instead (sorry!) but he is just more relevant to me at this point in history. I'm not sure if he was completely machine like in BW, but right now he is very much Nada-DeepBlue-like. I just think of that loss to DRG with positioning the CC on the low ground and getting surprised by a 14 pool...I think he has relied on BW mechanics all too much in his transition, and desperately needs some of that "Romantic" flair from the likes of qxc/Anderseen
Funny you say you thought it was about Flash. I almost wrote this article about Flash. But yes, Flash is far more relevant now than the retired Nada. Flash was one of the bonjwas of Brood War, along with NaDa. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Bonjwa He'll get there though. He's never been known for his Romantic-flair.
"Flash is known for his defensive capabilities, decision making, flawless macro, and exceptional unit control of maxed-out armies" - http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Flash
Predictability can be a killer though, so it's highly likely you are correct
|
|
|
|