Talk:Blindfold chess

Old talk

The article says there are blindfold tournaments throughout the year. I have never heard of any except for Amber, which is only partly blindfold. Can anyone provide more information? Nameme 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the see also section list the world chess championship? There is no information relation to blindfold chess at that article. Nameme 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the reference to the world chess championship. It clearly has no direct relevance to this article. I also removed the names of four players listed in the "see also" section - these were redundant, since they are already mentioned in the main body of the article. Dsreyn 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to add a link to my mnemonics memory techniques article on blindfold chess? I will put it on since I have waited a few days for a response. Sorry if it is not suitable. www.NakedScience.com : http://www.nakedscience.com/memory/blindfold%20chess.htm

question

Interesting article, but one claim left me wondering... "blindfold exhibitions were officially banned in 1930 in the USSR as they were deemed to be a health hazard" Why was it a health hazard? The crowds that assembled to watch it? Article should explain that, if anyone knows. --W.marsh 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is unsourced. Can somebody find a source, else I'll move it to the talk page. A claim that extraordinary reeks of vandalism without a source. Cheers128.250.5.245 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chessclub.com/resources/articles/article11_7.html SunCreator (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(archived link) Jimw338 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharta

Um, wait, we open with a quote saying that Buddha's friends (we're talking 5th century B.C. here..) played mental chess, then we follow that with a statement that it was first played in the 7th Century C.E.. Which one is it? - Eric 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koltanowski and Najdorf

I felt the article was too POV in favour of Najorf so I've rewritten it to give some more weight to Koltanowski's achievements. There was no source given for the statement that "Today (Najdorf's) feat is considered the most impressive in the history of simultaneous blindfold games." On the contrary, there's considerable evidence that the conditions under which Najdorf's records were set were much less strict than Koltanowski's.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the article ever states that a physical blindfolding isn't involved here, that this is just a term for competition wherein one or both players simply cannot look at the board (or where no board is involved at all). It really should do so.

Regarding Najdorf's 1947 claim to 45 simultaneous blindfold games, we are told: "However, he [Najdorf] had access to the scoresheets, and there were multiple opponents per board." I can see how access to the scoresheets would make the feat a great deal easier, but the reference to multiple opponents needs clarification. Surely, if two or more players consulted on a game, that should make it more difficult for the blindfold master, as they would have a second opinion to catch blunders. (Note that the preceding paragraph offers Alekhine's four opponents per board as a positive argument.) If, on the other hand, they had to alternate moves without being able to communicate, that would certainly result in worse play.) Or, is the implication here that maybe there were, say, only ten boards in play at any given time, with new opponents coming in after a game ended, and that there were 45 total decisions? (I'm dismissing the idea that he faced 15 teams of three players and counted each result thrice, because +39 =4 -2 couldn't result from that. Had it been +39 =3 -3, now that could have been an inflated +13 =1 -1.) I suspect that the details of the exhibition won't be easy to uncover, but we should keep looking. WHPratt (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal moves

I'm curious if there are rules governing what happens if a blindfold chess player tries to make an illegal move. Obviously the feat becomes a bit less impressive if the player has to keep guessing moves until he or she comes up with a legal one. Of course, in that circumstance there isn't much chance of them winning, but I was wondering if any of the players mentioned in the article played under the condition that trying to move a piece that wasn't there would forfeit the game. 69.133.200.38 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blindfold chess is a demonstration rather than a serious game. As far as I know there are no special rules for blindfold chess. Bubba73 (talk), 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing chess "blindfolded" is not a particularly impressive feat. Many, many years ago when I played tournament chess, I only got to an "A" ranking (below Expert, Master, Grandmaster, and International Grandmaster -- a mere bug on the windshield to these upper ranks), yet my friends of the same ranking and I were able to play blindfold games, often playing in the car going to/from tournaments. There is virtually no chance that a grandmaster playing blindfold would think there was a piece where there was none. Chess players spend a huge amount of time staring at a chessboard during games, mentally picturing the movement and changing positions of pieces before making each move. With that training, removing the board and visualizing it isn't that hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.89.194 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect no-name. Korchnoi for example isn't a great blindfold player and has made numerous errors. Occasionally a GM accidentally allows a piece (sometimes his Queen) available en prise. Also in modern games in the Amber tournament GMs are in fact looking at screens when they play "blindfold". This hugely helps when you play blindfold as you can immediately see the opened diagonals and files and what's going on.

I know all GMs could easily play and win simultaneous games against average players. Some people can just "see" the board easily, but for others they can't. However as someone who's struggled trying to learn blindfold, everything seems "easy" when you can do it easily. Not everyone has the natural ability to play blindfold though.

So while you may continue with your "bug on the windshield" allegorical nonsense, "virtually no chance" is not a correct statement as it happens a lot. Anonywiki (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gelfand just hung his Queen when under no pressure (although a bit low on time) in a blindfold against Aronian. http://chessbomb.com/o/2011-amber/07b-blind-Aronian-Gelfand/ We are in agreement that it's quite rare, but it does happen. If you look at other Amber games, a minority of them are won by bad blunders, some obscene. So there would certainly be a chance for them to make an illegal move, I would rate it as about the same chance that they would leave a piece en prise. My guess is they just notice from the computer that they cannot make that move, think "oh yeah how silly of me", and continue without anyone else knowing. Anonywiki (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this editorial:

The blindfold game between Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik could not be viewed life by the Internet audience (so far on average around 45,000 unique visitors per day!) and that was a great pity as in line with their previous battles there was again a lot of drama. Kramnik played his trusted Petroff, but contrary to what normally happens, he ended up in a clearly worse position. The tables could have been turned after Carlsen’s questionable 44.Re4, which allowed Black to take on e4 and follow up with 45…Nf6. According to Kramnik this would have given him a position that was ‘winning or in any case very close to winning’. The reason he didn’t take on e4, was that he believed his rook was on d7 and that he only realized that it was on e7 when he tried to play his knight to e7 and the computer refused to accept that move.

So as I suspected yes it does happen regularly.

I'm getting tired of the big talk employed by some people regarding blindfold. Of course if you're both playing very conservatively in the car you can probably just about play through to the endgame, especially when relying a lot on opening theory and both players are "playing along" and avoiding complications, trading off pieces early, etc. This is much, much easier than playing a competitive blindfold game, where either one of you can engage in wild tactics which would be complicated enough on an actual board. Anonywiki (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Useful http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00EED71131F937A15751C1A9609C8B63. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 + 5 + 5 = 32?

"On July 16, 1934 in Chicago, Alekhine set the new world record by playing 32 blindfold games, with 19 wins, 5 losses, and 5 draws. Edward Lasker was the referee for this event."

Can someone check what actually happened with this? Obviously there are 3 other games that were played that aren't mentioned in the results, and I'm not enough of a chess enthusiast to know where to look for the answer, nor make an unsourced change myself. Ty 163.189.7.40 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked several sources, and the only one I found just said 32 games. However, the article on Alekhine gives nine draws and four loses, with a reference to Donaldson. I don't have that reference to check out, but it is probably right. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the help Bubba, and for changing it :) 163.189.7.40 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blindfold chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120329111856/http://www.jerrywalldesigns.com/WhiteKnightSep10.pdf to http://www.jerrywalldesigns.com/WhiteKnightSep10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blindfold chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823011200/http://www.nakedscience.com:80/memory/blindfold%20chess.htm to http://www.nakedscience.com/memory/blindfold%20chess.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]