In message
<f52de5de-be1d-447c-9e35-cd4674819017@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Sanny <softtanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>But analyzing
>on TV is just difficult.
But can be done. I used to watch a bit when we had it - my father was
the
real chess player in the family, and he'd be watching it. I remember a
K vs. K game (carefully avoiding having to remember which Ks) which got
to a point which to me looked like both had developed, white rather
better.
But the commentator(s) - British grandmasters were cheap - pointed out
that black had no moves. Basically his only play was moving a knight
back
and forward. And even I knew that at that point black was doomed. White
could manoeuvre however he likes - maintaining the stranglehold - and
then
launch a killing attack. Of course white could still blow it - but when
white
was one of the Ks (probably Kasparov, but maybe not) that wasn't going
to happen. But it was the commentator who explained what was actually
happening.
The other approach they tried was playing the game, then getting each
player to give a running commentary on how he (claimed) he was thinking
- done as if recorded during the game, but of course recorded
afterwards.
Splice together with a playing of the game spread over a suitable length
of time, and quite effective.
So it can be done - if you have the opportunity.
--
Christopher Dearlove
