My Chess Blog

Who is an artist? An artist is the one who paints and bestows certain importance over 'something' in the canvas which otherwise tends to pass out of ordinary perception...isn't it!? He makes the eyes talk, a smile to convey a million meaning, a lip which is more inviting...., a galloping horse to kick your back.....! But it requires an artistic vision to 'read' that....appreciate that....enjoy the creation. ....and by his creation, the artist not only uplifts the art, but also elevates the onlooker to higher perception....if they are prepared to letgo off all the conditioning.....has the ability to stare with naked perception, with great innocence! "Boy leading a Horse" by Pablo Picasso  Primarily, what strikes when one looks at this masterpiece by Picasso is the "bareness" - the landscape is bare, the sky is bare and so is the horse and the boy.  The bareness camouflages the mood of the artist which made him put his brush on the

I distinctly see Steinitz in Carlsen! ....in the way he uses his King, in the way he leaves the QB, at times, in its original square and develops the Rook other way, in the way he handles his pawns, in the way he perceives his centre, in the way he indulges in some extreme experiments to win as well as lose few games! In short, like the first World Champion, Carlsen remains flexible in his approach and moves around like a river which will flow and meander with great ease without much exertion! After a highly bizarre opening...., piece sac.... which made Greek and Latin easy to understand, Carlsen, playing White against Topalov in the first round of the ongoing Sinquefield Cup, did manage to reach the following position, which notwithstanding its continued confusion, appears to be in parity! But.... BOOM came 17.e5? and it was curtains for White, who just managed to wag the tail weakly for some more moves.....before..... In the second round, however, Carlsen played a

Recently, I came across the following position while studying Steinitz's games, and was stunned. The father of modern chess and the first world champion, playing black against Lasker (to whom he had lost his title only a few months back), had the audacity and  'creative recklessness' to put his pieces back in their den....after 17 moves, few of them haphazardly, more importantly....disobeying his own postulates!! But..... ....despite its blatant ugly look, Black is not all that bad, and if he had played his penchant ....f6 (he was fond of f6 as black and f3 as white, in order to fortify his center), at some point and, or, not moved his g-pawn & f-pawn as he did, a few moves later much against his principle, he may not have lost or even if he had lost, not this bad! Emanuel Lasker - William Steinitz, Hastings - 1895 I would be doing a gross injustice to show you the game starting from this point on, as obviously, one would be interested

" In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty "  This 'postulate' by Emerson would and should linger in the minds of every true creator; for genius, or more precisely, greatness is not a prerogative of a 'selected few'. Every human being is inherently great and it so happens that most of us prefer not to be and strive towards mediocrity!! For, achieving mastery in a chosen field is simple and it only requires effort to fail! But..... ......as it is said, it is most difficult to be simple, do things simply!! All one needs to do is to 'allow them' the liberty to do simple things and accept the gift that comes by, unconditionally and walk with their heads held high! To 'allow' and 'accept', one has to obliterate their mind, for it is the mind which pushes one towards mediocrity! And once this happens, and only when this happens, the self belief or self r