Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2012

Urlaub


Lange herbeigesehnt, jetzt ist er da: Urlaub!

Hermine sagt: Urlaub!

P.S.: Bis fast Mitte Juli.

Haute Cuisine - Zusammenhang

Haute Cuisine; Sterne-Küche. Ich habe mich schon immer fürchterlich darüber echauffiert: Das Essen muss ich auf dem Teller suchen. Basteln am Essen - Motto: wenn die Zutaten das gewährleisten, okay. Und genauso schlimm: Tomaten und Himbeeren werden passiert - wegen ihrer ihnen naturgemäß innewohnenden Kerne.




Heute morgen - beim Spülen - sind mir die Zusammenhänge blitzrasch klar geworden: Wer goutiert bevorzugt diese teuren Produkte der Haute Cuisine (von denen ich nicht satt werde); wer kann sie sich leisten, Produkte wie Köche? Reiche - mehr als gesettelte - Menschen, jenseits der Sechzig. Menschen mit ausgeprägten Zahnprothesen also und naturgemäß, physiologisch abnehmendem Appetit.

Ebenfalls erklärt sich für mich auf diese Weise der Trend, Hang zur Niedrigtemperatur-Methode. Im Alter noch Heißes und gut Durchgegartes essen? - Ich persönlich kann und werde mich nicht an rosa gebratenes Schweinefleisch und glasigen Fisch gewöhnen.

Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2012

Im Falle eines Flugzeugabsturzes

Im Falle eines Flugzeugabsturzes


Was macht eigentlich ein Paar bei einem Flugzeugabsturz?

Die Verfallen doch nicht in Panik.
Die machen sich doch keine Vorwürfe.

Die halten sich (im besten Falle)
bis ganz zum Schluss lieb,
so lieb es nur irgend geht!


©Reinhardt Fischer

Muttersohn (3)

[...] Dann stach die stolze zweimastige Yacht in See. Zwölf Menschen an Bord. Von denen seien aber im Film nur neun zusehen. Gefilmt zu werden sei nicht jedem recht. Der Professor sah zu Percy herüber. Sein Mund formulierte: Eva Maria. Percy selber wartete darauf, dass Eva Maria auftauchte, auftrete, wenigstens sichtbar werde. Tatsächlich gab sich der Film neugierig, führte den fabelhaft leicht dahingleitenden Segelalltag genussvoll vor. Auch die zum Schönwettersegeln gehörende Langeweile wurde gezeigt. Aber immer wieder: An was für Naturwundern fuhr man vorbei. An was für Buchten! Da hingen Wälder ins Wasser, als träumten sie. Da starrten zerrissene Felsen ins Meer, als hätten sie Furchtbares erlebt. Dann die Handlung. [...]
(a.a.O., S.157f.)

Lit.:
Walser, M.: Muttersohn. Reinbek 2011.

Hermine sagt: Bitte sehr.

Dienstag, 12. Juni 2012

Muttersohn (2)

Da er, wenn er eilig aussah, überhaupt nicht hastig wirkte, bleibt nichts übrig, als seine Art zu gehen übermütig zu nennen. Wie die Fußspitzen mehr nach links und rechts als nach vorne hinausstachen, da wunderte es einen, dass er vorwärtskam. Dieser Engel ohne Flügel. Dieser - Harry Strawinski mög´ es verzeihen - Tänzer der Gewichtigkeit. Er war nämlich nicht schwer, sondern gewichtig. [...]

(a.a.O., S.129)

Lit.:
Walser, M.: Muttersohn. Reinbek 2011.

Hermine sagt: Bitte sehr.

Montag, 11. Juni 2012

Morozevich gewinnt Tal Memorial Blitz im Tiebreak, vor Carlsen

Vor allen Dingen die Photos gefallen mir an diesem dokumentarischen Bericht:

Morozevich wins Tal Memorial blitz on tiebreak, ahead of Carlsen:
Morozevich wins Tal Memorial blitz on tiebreak, ahead of Carlsen
Alexander Morozevich won the Tal Memorial blitz tournament on Thursday afternoon in Moscow. The Russian grandmaster edged out Magnus Carlsen on tiebreak (more games with black) after both players finished on 6.5/9. The tournament was held instead of a drawing of lots, and determined the draw numbers for the players at the Tal Memorial which starts on Friday.
Morozevich vs Carlsen (1-0) today in Moscow | All photos by Eteri Kublashvil & Vladimir Barsky courtesy of the Russian Chess Federation

Event Tal Memorial 2012 | Blitz PGN via TWIC
Dates June 7-18, 2012
Location Moscow, Russia
System 10-player round robin
Players Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, Radjabov, Nakamura, Caruana, Morozevich, Grischuk, Tomashevsky, McShane
Rate of play 100 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 50 minutes for the next 20 moves followed by 15 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move one
Prize fund 100,000 Euro, first prize 30,000
More info All the details

The 7th Mikhail Tal Memorial was opened on Thursday afternoon and started with a blitz tournament, a novelty introduced by the Russian Chess Federation this year, to determine the draw numbers for the players. It was a 9-round blitz tournament between all ten participants, according to the round robin system. The time control was 3 minutes and 2 seconds increment per game. The drawing of lots for this tournament was fixed, and followed the ratings of the players. Here are all games for replay:
PGN file

Tal Memorial Blitz 2012 | Final standings

In case of a tie, the following tiebreaks were used in descending order (the same as in the main tournament):
  1. Highest number of games played with Black
  2. Highest number of wins
  3. Direct encounter
  4. Koya system
  5. Sonneborn-Berger coefficient
Based on this, Alexander Morozevich was declared the winner of the tournament, and got start number 1 for the main tournament. He also won the 5,000 Euro first prize, while Magnus Carsen got the 3,000 Euro second prize. Morozevich in fact also beat Carlsen (on time) in their mutual game.
The tournament was broadcast online including video streams of the playing hall. Similar to the World Blitz Championship, which was held after the 2010 Tal Memorial, the players were sitting on a small, round stage and five of these small stages were put up in the hall. This way a lot of spectators could get more than a glimpse of what was happening on the boards.

The live video also revealed something that is unavoidable at such events: a number of games were not saved correctly into PGN. Especially when players are starting to play really fast, and pieces tumble over,   sometimes the software just cannot understand what's happening and stops registering the remainder of the game.
The top 5 players in the final standings of this blitz event earned 5 games with the white pieces in the main event, and 4 blacks. It remains to be seen whether this will be a big advantage, because the first tiebreak rule is the number of games with black...
Below we give the full schedule and pairings. The rest days are on the 11th and 15th of June. More information on the Tal Memorial can be found here.

Tal Memorial 2012 | Schedule & pairings

Round 1 08.06.12 13:00 CET Round 2 09.06.12 13:00 CET
Morozevich - Caruana Caruana - Nakamura
Carlsen - Kramnik Tomashevsky - Aronian
Grischuk - McShane McShane - Radjabov
Radjabov - Tomashevsky Kramnik - Grischuk
Aronian - Nakamura Morozevich - Carlsen
Round 3 10.06.12 13:00 CET Round 4 12.06.12 13:00 CET
Carlsen - Caruana Caruana - Tomashevsky
Grischuk - Morozevich McShane - Nakamura
Radjabov - Kramnik Kramnik - Aronian
Aronian - McShane Morozevich - Radjabov
Nakamura - Tomashevsky Carlsen - Grischuk
Round 5 13.06.12 13:00 CET Round 6 14.06.12 13:00 CET
Grischuk - Caruana Caruana - McShane
Radjabov - Carlsen Kramnik - Tomashevsky
Aronian - Morozevich Morozevich - Nakamura
Nakamura - Kramnik Carlsen - Aronian
Tomashevsky McShane Grischuk - Radjabov
Round 7 16.06.12 13:00 CET Round 8 17.06.12 13:00 CET
Radjabov - Caruana Caruana - Kramnik
Aronian - Grischuk Morozevich - McShane
Nakamura - Carlsen Carlsen - Tomashevsky
Tomashevsky - Morozevich Grischuk - Nakamura
McShane - Kramnik Radjabov - Aronian
Round 9 18.06.12 11:00 CET
Aronian - Caruana
Nakamura - Radjabov
Tomashevsky - Grischuk
McShane - Carlsen
Kramnik - Morozevich


Chief arbiter Andrzej Filipowicz of Poland explaining the rules

Levon Aronian (Armenia)

Magnus Carlsen (Norway)

Alexander Grischuk (Russia)

Vladimir Kramnik (Russia)

Luke McShane (England)

Alexander Morozevich (Russia)

Hikaru Nakamura (USA)

Teimour Radjabov (Azerbaijan)

Evgeny Tomashevsky (Russia)

Among the spectators: Arkadij Dvorkovich, who very recently was appointed as Deputy Prime Minister in Dmitry Medvedev's Cabinet... 

...and the oldest living GM, Yuri Averbakh


Another distinguished spectator: Sergey Karjakin (Russia), not playing the Tal Memorial this year

Ian Nepomniachtchi and Magnus Carlsen chatting

The view from the Pashkov House, with the Kremlin on the left

Category:

Nachlese Anand-Gelfand 2/2

Boris Gelfand: "Kasparov bot mir sein Hilfe an, ich sagte nein" Interview, 2/2

Ein sympathischer und weiser Vize-Weltmeister!

Boris Gelfand: "Kasparov offered his help, but I said no" | Interview, part 2 of 2:
Boris Gelfand: "Kasparov offered his help, but I said no"
One week after the end of the World Championship match in Moscow, challenger Boris Gelfand of Israel speaks out. In the second and last part of this interview, the Israeli tells about the second half of the match, about his favorite player Akiba Rubinstein, about his coaches whom he invited to Moscow, about chess in Israel and... about saying no to Garry Kasparov, who offered to help preparing for the match.
Photos by Alexey Yushenkov & Anastasia Karlovich

Part 2 of 2

Read the first part of this interview here.
Then, you win game 7. Everyone quoted the same statistic: that you didn't beat Vishy since '93. Were you extra relieved because of this?
Not at all. First of all I don't believe in statistics. I think it's very often misleading. It's very nice, but it doesn't have big value. For example, if you look at our games, from the year 2000 Vishy and I only played five or six games. So what does it mean that I didn't win any of these game? He won one game out of this five. What does it mean?
I was very happy that I played a really good game, really in Rubinstein-style, in the style of my favorite player, and it gave me a very good feeling.
Rubinstein is your favorite player?
Yes, sure, definitely.
So it must have also given some pleasure that you were able to play his 4.e3 move against the Nimzo-Indian in a title match.
Yes, indeed, I had it in mind.
That's nice.
But also from the Black side, all Meran is Rubinstein's system, even though it's called Meraner system. Most of the modern openings are based on Rubinstein. Sorry that I divert...
That's no problem! Let's divert just a bit more: do you think that at some point in history, Rubinstein would have had a good chance to become world champion?
It's hard to say. From the chess point of view of course he was much ahead of time. But as a practical player, I'm not sure if he'd be good enough to beat Lasker. Unfortunately we never had a chance to test this. Definitely the match would be extremely interesting, but history didn't let us see this match.

What was it that you won this game 7, I mean, you played a fine game, but it also seemed that Vishy didn't have his day. Especially ...g5 was criticized.
Yes, but there he's already in serious trouble. The problem is that computers always give White's advantage in very moderate terms, while from a practical point of view, White has a long-term plan and Black doesn't. That's why White's advantage is pretty big. Of course, probably it was possible to defend more stubbornly, but White has a serious advantage, much more serious than computers suggest.
Maybe this is something computers still not understand these days: if one side can still find a lot of (useful) moves while the opponent has nothing to play for.
Exactly, and I'm happy because it was actually... I think Lasker said about Rubinstein that in his games, I don't remember exactly, I could be misquoting him, but that from the first move till the last move it's like "one game", and in this 7th game it was the same. The same concept was executed from start to finish.
Based on Black's queen's bishop.
Yes, the b7 bishop was not so good.
And then the next day of course everything changed, again. What happened? How do you look back at this oversight, two weeks after?
It's hard to say. I think I played according to the demands of the position. After the [king's] knight went to c3 I had to play on the kingside. I calculated some deep and beautiful lines, but OK, one line escaped my attention. I calculated some unbelievably complicated lines and they were correct, but... OK, it happens.
At the press conference, Vishy wasn't very happy after his loss but you seemed quite down-to-earth after that blunder. How do you cope so well with such things? Or do you only look cool from the outside?
No, I felt totally confident. The match goes on. It doesn't matter if you have +1 because there are still four games to play. You can lose the next game or something. I took it as I said: each game you should be ready to play your best, and go on like this. So I thought OK, we go on with an equal score, you can miscalculate something.
Do you have such a strong personality? Do you cope with losses like this all the time?
Well, probably. I don't know about personality, but I do think that probably I cope with these things better than most of my rivals. Probably it's my strong point.
Probably I cope with these things better than most of my rivals.
Has it always been like this?
I wouldn't say so, but I learnt it over the years.
An important moment in the match was, I think, your decision to play 19.c5 in that first Nimzo-Indian, game 9...
Exactly.
...do you regret it? I mean, some grandmasters said White's advantage was quite big after 19.a3 or 19.h3...
Yes, White's advantage is big but the problem is that Black is simply waiting, Black has nothing to do, and I didn't see how White can break through. Probably I miscalculated something, I didn't have time to look at it yet. Maybe it was not practical to calculate it till the end. I tried to find a forced win and I found this queen against rook and knight, and I believed that if I'd play on both flanks... I saw that I would get my pawn on a6 and I believed that I would create a second weakness on the kingside and that would be enough. Of course I realized that the risk that he would be able to build a fortress would be big, but still the risk that he would simply wait, if I played 19.a3 and he would play like Kh8, Kg8, that the risk that I wouldn't find a way to break through was also big.
It's difficult, because if you play slowly and you don't win, than people will say that "he could force matters and win, and if you force matters then people say "he should have waited and he'd have good winning chances." This is the kind of positions where you don't have a perfect solution. Whatever you do, you may be making the right decision, or you make a mistake.
Did you, or your seconds, try to win this ending afterwards, in your hotel? Maybe by playing this g4 earlier?
They told me... Yes, I understand that the only try is to play g4 earlier. I considered this, but I didn't see how I would break through there. They told me that they looked at it and that it gave good winning chances, but we decided to go back to it after the match, to be focused for the tasks which were ahead of us.

Then you showed fantastic preparation, in a sideline of the Rossolimo. Was this an example of how hard you worked on your openings?
Probably. I got this idea to play ...e5, not to follow the main, theoretical couse. It seemed like a good idea and it worked well.
In the last two games it seemed that both of you were even more cautious than before.
No, I don't think I played cautiously. Again, I had the same problem as in game 9. I think after I played Bf4 in the opening, he played Rc8, I do believe that I have a certain advantage, but it's probably not good enough. Probably Ne5 was a bit premature, but it's hard to say.
About game 12, you cannot say we played cautiously, because I got caught in the opening and I think it's maybe the nicest moment of the match, this c5-c4 move. Even some great guys in the commentary room didn't see it.
Yes, it was praised by Vishy too...
It's really a great move. The computers don't even show it. It's beautiful, and such moves make a real difference. If, in a drawn position, you make ten more moves, it would add nothing to chess, if you look at the whole picture. Probably you would get some entertainment for twenty more minutes. But such moves like ...c4 I think would go to each book would be studied all over the world for many years. This move is more important than, let's say, a few more moves in game 4 or Vishy playing a few more moves in game 12.
Such moves make a real difference. If, in a drawn position, you make ten more moves, it would add nothing to chess.
You took some time on it. Did you spot it very quickly, or only after excluding alternatives?
It took a while. I immediately realized that I'm in trouble and that urgent measures are necessary. If White would manage to develop his pieces and castle long, my position would be really dreadful. I first looked at all the possible moves with my queen, but I couldn't make them work. Then suddenly it occurred that I have other ways to disturb White's piece composition.
If you look back, is there anything that you would do differently?
Well... maybe certain technical things, but the attitude, the opening choice... they would be the same.
What technical things?
Maybe I would analyze some lines deeper and pay less attention to others. And maybe in my preparation I would change time management. I would spend one more week on this, and ignore something else. Certain openings I analyzed for three weeks, and about certain openings I thought: OK, it's very unlikely to happen so I'll ignore those. But I probably spent too much time on things which were unlikely to happen, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

Vishy said that you always greeted each other warmly backstage before the game. In general the match will probably go down into history as the one between good friends. To what extent this influence the games? Is it easier or more difficult to play against someone you don't like very much?
For me I think it influenced in a positive way. Different people have different opinions, but I think a World Championship match is also a cultural event and we should set an example for children who watch it, for the public who watches it. This is a different thing: people who love chess want to see the best possible games, while people who want to see a show would prefer to see scandals, low-level accusations, et cetera. We should see to whom we apply. Do we apply to public whom we respect, to children whom we want to learn chess, or do we want to apply to the same public who want to see the same show as they watch on TV every day?
I think a World Championship match is also a cultural event and we should set an example for children who watch it.
Could we say that you see chess more like a play in a theater than as a sport?
I think it's part of it, it's not only sport. With chess you also set a good example for the society. You see so many people trying to promote chess in schools nowadays. The agenda is that chess is good, chess is teaching important things. We should do something so that his will become true, that these are not words to the outside, but we should believe in it. We should set a good example instead of cheap scandals. The fact that in a World Championship match the players treat each other with dignity and respect, I think it gives a lot to chess.
You have stated several times that you hope that chess will become a bigger sport in Israel. Are there signs already that the popularity and importance are growing?
I do believe so. As I heard, from game 9 the whole country became "chess crazy". It was the first news on TV, they built a projection [of the live coverage - CV] in the prime minister's office, so during the games he was permanently watching what was going on... Basically the whole country has greeted me like I'm the biggest hero of the country, to my surprise. The budget from the government funds for chess is doubled. We have a very low position here, and it's a long way to go, but probably we'll go up.
Are you planning to contribute yourself in some ways in Israel? Maybe something with children, simuls...
I think my name gives a lot. I want to contribute with my results. I could have started with all this a long time ago, but in this case I wouldn't have reached a World Championship match, I wouldn't have played with dignity and chess wouldn't get such a big push. I think my main task is keep on playing well, keep my level and try to go even higher.
You have no less ambition.
No, no. My ambition is to learn day after day. This match taught me a lot of important lessons, the match and the preparation for it. I hope I will benefit from these lessons and my level of the game will get even higher.

At the closing ceremony, Vishy said some very nice words about you, but in your speech you did not mention Vishy. Was this on purpose, or...?
No, it was not on purpose. I have high praise for Vishy and want to thank him for his sportsmanship. You know, the last days after the match were very hectic, and I didn't know I would be called to make a speech. I want to apologize for Vishy if I congratulate him warm enough or didn't praise him enough. I think he was a big fighter and he showed his very best and I'm thankful to him for this match. As usual he behaved with dignity and with big respect and I want to wish him all the best of success in all forthcoming events.
Of course we have to speak about the comments made by Garry Kasparov, because he actually said that Anand was not showing his very best, that he was not playing at the same level as against Kramnik in 2008. What is your reaction to this?
You know, I want to tell you something. In September last year I was approached by people representing Garry, and they suggested that he would help me during the match. They asked my representative if we wanted negotiations or not. This was while I was playing in Rogaska (at the European Club Cup in Rogaska Slatina - CV].
Wow! What exactly did they offer?
That he would be my second during the match, and probably during the preparation. They wanted to have negotiations about the format of his collaboration.
And how did you respond?
I was really shocked. He had just been helping Vishy in the previous match, I knew he was working with Hikaru [Nakamura], so obviously I said no. For me it was unthinkable to receive help from somebody who has access to secrets of my colleagues.
In September last year I was approached by people representing Garry, and they suggested that he would help me during the match. (...) I was really shocked. (...) For me it was unthinkable to receive help from somebody who has access to secrets of my colleagues.
You would never have the guarantee that certain information might become accessible to others...
No, not only this, it's my personal point of view. I think it's unthinkable. Only two years have passed when you helped one player, and now you help against him. I would feel very bad' it's against my convictions to use this.

And you think this is why Kasparov made these comments?
From the moment I said no, only negative thing were said by him about the match, about me, about Vishy... I couldn't think that such a great player would take such a revenge, but nobody has managed to provide me with a better explanation so far.
During the match I asked my seconds to brief me about what was written in the media, and there were only negative things. Like now, it was also said that under any other system I wouldn't have qualified. You know, it's like Winnie-the-Pooh, wrong bees are producing wrong honey. OK, under Garry's system I couldn't qualify but he was picking up the challengers. But I think I proved enough, in a tournament like Mexico, in short matches, long matches, I can do well in any format. I think I proved this throughout my career, and I don't need any other proof. I don't think Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Petrosian would ever think of such an attack at their colleagues.
I don't think Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Petrosian would ever think of such an attack at their colleagues.
Vishy's response was that Kasparov should return to chess. Do you agree?
I would be very happy.
Really?
Yes. He's a great player, probably the greatest in history, so I think he does much better playing chess rather than being outside chess. I think he would please the chess world with his games much more than with his comments.
Do you think he could still compete among the very best players?
I don't know. It's hard to speculate, but I think he should give it a try. The chess public would appreciate it a lot.

It was wonderful to see that you brought your four coaches to Moscow: Tamara Golovey & Leonid Bondar, Eduard Zelkind, and Albert Kapengut. Please briefly describe what they meant for your chess development.
Sure, it's my pleasure because they did a lot and they're part of my success. I was very happy when they accepted my invitation and came to Moscow to see the match and to cheer for me. Eduard Zelkind was my first coach. I started to work with him when I was six and we worked until I was 11, when he moved to the United States.
So he was the one who taught you that rook ending?
Yeah, exactly! He taught me the rook endings. I still have notes with the rook endings. So it's kind of a disappointment for me that I didn't win this totally winning rook ending in game 3 but it has nothing to do with chess knowledge.
Tamara took over when he moved to the States, and she accompanied me to many events, in Soviet Union Championships, and she gave me some valuable lessons, like before each game you should not only try to remember what you'll play, but you should also move the moves at a chess board because then you'll remember them well. I still do this.
Leonid Bondar is her husband and he was my teacher at the Chess University, the same as where Andrei Filatov was studying, and Ilya Smirin, and Zsuzsa Polgar... He had a lot of prominent students. His passion for chess is incomparable. There we talked about cities, and he told me that Geneva is the best city in the world because in the city parks they have big chess sets! I learnt a lot from his passion and his love for chess.
And of course Albert Kapengut was my trainer for many, many years, till 1993. With his help I won the first Interzonal; I worked the whole first Candidates cycle with him. He taught me a lot of things. Most importantly, he taught me how to deal with information and the importance of information, and how chess players should work on chess. This is the most important thing, I think. You can have the best trainers, the best computers, but if you don't know how to work, if you don't have passion for it, nothing else can help you. These are the most important lessons I got from them. And of course all of them taught me that you should win with dignity and lose with dignity.

So... what's next? You'll probably take some rest now, and then... the Olympiad?
Actually I would be happy to play. I have so many ideas and I did so much work, so I'm rushing to put it into practice and to see what I learnt. But for the moment I don't have many invitations, so maybe the Olympiad will be the next tournament.
Actually I would be happy to play. I have so many ideas and I did so much work, so I'm rushing to put it into practice and to see what I learnt.
Of course there is only one question I can finish this interview with. How do you rate Holland's chances in the European Championship?
I really hope they do well. Holland is normally not doing so well the World Cup, but the European is our territory! I believe in, and I hope for a big success. The attack is fantastic, so if the balance can be found between defence and attack, all the chances are there. Of course the group is difficult [Netherlands faces Denmark, Germany and Portugal - CV] but as long as we get through the group, it should be easier. Of course I will root for Holland and watch each match.

Category:

Nachlese Anand-Gelfand 1/2

Mir gefielen schon immer Gelfands Sizilianisch- (Najdorf) und seine Königsindisch-Partien.

Boris Gelfand: "I was by no means inferior in this match" | Interview, part 1 of 2:
Boris Gelfand: "I was by no means inferior in this match" | Interview, part 1 of
Exactly one week after the end of the World Championship match in Moscow, challenger Boris Gelfand of Israel speaks out. In the first part of this interview, the Israeli tells us about his preparation, his choice of openings, and his view on chess and its the different types of audiences.
Photos by Alexey Yushenkov & Anastasia Karlovich
The interview was conducted via Skype, on Tuesday morning, June 5th, 2012. Gelfand was at this home in Rishon-le-Zion, sitting behind his computer, and many mouse clicks could be heard during the talk. Afterwards he would explain that during the interview he was also looking at some of the tiebreak games, the openings, middlegames, endings, the missed chances... It must have been difficult to get these games off his mind.

Part 1 of 2

Vishy said he felt 'relieved'. What was your biggest emotion after the last game? Were you disappointed, perhaps even angry at yourself?
I was remembering of course Barcelona-Chelsea. You had the advantage, then you didn't take your chances and then the opponent takes his chances. I think for me it's very similar. It's sport. You should accept it, but of course you know you could do much better.
If we look back, can we say that you lost the match in the third rapid game?
I wouldn't say so because also in the fourth rapid game I had all the chances.
How big was your advantage, now that you look back at it?
I didn't analyze it yet, but the problem is I didn't realize I had to exchange one pair of rooks and develop an initiative on both flanks, but technically it's not so easy to execute because you have to be very careful and I wasn't. But basically I think there are good winning chances. White played the opening very passively and the only thing he can hope for is a fortress. However, generally speaking, if White stays passive, I think the chances he gets a fortress are not very big. But of course you have to play extremely precisely and in rapid chess it's not so simple.
How do you explain this rook ending in the third tiebreak game  was it the pressure?
I didn't feel like I was under pressure, it was a hallucination. You know, I started studying rook endings at the age of nine. I'm sure that when I was nine, I would win this ending! I played a game against Tony Miles, and he was not familiar with an ending which I knew at the age of nine.
Were you afraid he would reach the Vancura position?
No, it was obvious that the Vancura was not possible. It was just a hallucination, and I think I had about twenty seconds left there.
Vishy started playing much faster in the tiebreak, but you spent quite some time in a lot of positions. Was this a mistake?
You've been in Monaco, so you know that I'm always playing like this. In most of the games I'm behind on the clock. This happened in most of my rapid tournaments and tiebreaks, it's like a style of play.
You don't think you could play at a higher level with a different time management?
Probably, but if you look at my results in rapid chess I don't think it could be higher, in all modesty. My results in rapid chess are probably even better than in classical chess. I won two Monaco's in rapid, I've beaten Aronian and Leko in matches, or the tiebreaks... If it's my style, I think I should stick to it even at critical moments. You have to feel good with yourself, to play the way you feel it's correct to play.
Probably, but if you look at my results in rapid chess I don't think it could be higher, in all modesty. My results in rapid chess are probably even better than in classical chess.
What went through your mind when Vishy played 5.e5 in the last rapid game? This is quite a well-known line, and you thought for about six minutes.
There are two moves, 5...cxd4 and 5...Qa5. Probably I was hesitating too much. But you know, somewhere in 1981 or 1982 I remember we analyzed this, my trainer [Albert] Kapengut and me and since then I didn't update my knowledge. However, I don't think the theory changed much. But OK, since then thirty years have passed, and I was trying to remember what we considered correct. Well, I didn't try to remember, I tried to make a decision between the two moves, because obviously I was afraid to fall into some forced draw. I kept double checking, because if I'd do something wrong I wouldn't have a chance. I chose correctly and got a chance. But yes, if I had only spent two or three minutes, it would have made a difference.

Let's go back in time. How do you explain your success in Kazan and Khanty. How is it possible that you manage to peak at all these important events?
I don't know. Basically, I am capable of playing really well, but I need to concentrate. Besides, for events like the World Championship and Kazan, I was preparing for months. I am an "aged" player, so I need to focus on something. It doesn't mean that I'm playing weaker but I do believe that I have to be very focused, I cannot play well if I play two or three tournaments in a row, I cannot keep consistency. But if I can focus on something, I think I can do probably even better than in the years when I was younger, because of experience. Towards Kazan and towards the World Championship match I really spent like six months to be in physical shape, to be in mental shape, to be ready chess-wise. If I have the time to prepare, I think my results shouldn't surprise anybody.
If I have the time to prepare, I think my results shouldn't surprise anybody.
Was your result in Wijk aan Zee below par because you were less focused, and in the middle of  your preparation?
No, I don't think so. The difference is that my attitude is a bit different than with most of the players. If I'm in bad form I keep on playing as ambitiously as usual; I don't care if I lose some Elo points or win Elo points. For me it bears no value. So when the tournament didn't go well, I just thought that I should keep on trying my best, play as ambitious as possible, to try my best and to get a lesson.
You remember my game with Levon Aronian in the penultimate round? It was a sharp game. At first I was better, then it was complicated, then probably better again and then he was better but I could hold but in the sixth hour I made a mistake. Some other players would think: I'm in bad form, I'm playing the leader of the tournament, so I should play safe, make a draw and go home. But for me it's much more interesting and important to have a fight with a great player rather than calculate how many Elo points I would keep or lose. So I kept on playing too ambitiously and I didn't, how to say it, "minimize the damage". Besides, of course I couldn't devote half a year to preparing for Wijk aan Zee. I did my best; for me it is a very important event. But of course there's a difference if you can prepare for the event of your life or not.
To what extent were you "hiding your openings"? Maybe it was easier for you than for Anand, because you would not play the Grünfeld or the Sveshnikov, but instead you could play your regular openings!
Indeed, I wouldn't blame the openings, because I played the openings I was pretty familiar with, Najdorf, Petroff. And when there are three or four months before the event, normally you are not prepared yet. Most of the preparation happens in these final months, so you cannot say you have a "killing novelty" and you hide it.
You had about a year to prepare for the match. What did this year look like for you? How did you form your strategy and what kind of schedule did you follow?
I think it was a great year, I really enjoyed it. I started thinking about what I should do, and what strategy to adopt, already in the summer. I started thinking about different openings, with White and with Black...
And before the match you took your team to Austria.
Yes, we were in the Austrian Alps. We were getting energy there, it's a wonderful place, and we were working on chess intensively. We tried to combine both. We stayed there, then we went back to Israel, and then back to Austria again. Altogether we spent about one and a half month there.
Before that, in Israel my normal schedule would be to go for a training session for a couple of weeks, then go home to calm down, to rethink everything, to get new ideas and then go back for another training session and go deeper.

How and when did you decide on going for the Grünfeld and the Sveshnikov as your main weapons?
Last year already, I don't remember exactly but certainly before the Tal Memorial [which was in November 2011 - CV]. I looked at Vishy's games and I thought this was the opening that could cause him the most problems. The Grünfeld is... even if you play it with Black, it's not easy to play with White. Against each system Black has a big choice. If you play it with Black and you have a certain system against let's say the Bc4 variation, there are seven other systems which you can adopt. I thought if he would consider the main choice, it would be difficult for him during the match to learn the whole opening.
About the Sveshnikov, I played it like ten years ago and I thought that I had great results, and I abandoned it in 2003, 2004 for more for emotial reasons than for practical reasons. Maybe I lost a game, or something. You just play an opening, and then you go to another one, it happens. Viktor Kortchnoi was always saying: if you want to make progress, you have to learn new openings all the time. If such a person gives you such an advice, you should listen to it.
Viktor Kortchnoi was always saying: if you want to make progress, you have to learn new openings all the time. If such a person gives you such an advice, you should listen to it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with the Petroff or the Najdorf. Is the surprise effect more important than the opening itself?
Both are important. The difference is, some people think that any surprise is good but I think a good surprise is good! It's a different opinion and I'm not sure it's so obvious. Some people say: if you surprise your opponent, it's already good. But especially in such a match, when your opponent is preparing for so long, if you play a bad surprise, maybe it works for one game but in the next he would crush you.
How is it possible that in Kazan everyone played the QGD and that we didn't see it in this match?
Maybe Vishy was planning to play it but I played Nimzo-Indian. [By going for 3.Nc3 instead of 3.Nf3, White is allowing Black's main response 3...Bb4, the Nimzo - CV.] We don't know if he would play the Queen's Gambit, or Queen's Indian, or Benoni or Vienna after Nf3. Maybe in the next tournaments we'll see what Vishy had prepared if somebody would play Nf3 against him.
In Moscow I've seen Alexander Huzman, Evgeny Tomashevsky, Maxim Rodshtein and Pavel Eljanov. Who else did you work with? What is true about the rumour of you working with Levon Aronian?
Well, I wouldn't comment on rumours but Mikhail Roiz was helping us all the time.
You don't want to confirm or deny working with Levon?
Well, I wouldn't confirm. He's a good friend of mine and of course we often discuss different things, but to "work" is a different story.
But were you in contact with him during the match, for example?
I wouldn't comment on it. Let's say: I was not in more contact than usual, this I can say.

OK, on to the match. Although your colleagues were less sure, before the match the general public considered Vishy to be the big favorite. You always say you don't think about these things. Didn't you rate your chances at all?
Basically the opinion of my colleagues is always very different than the opinion of the public. They thought I could do it, and I knew I could do it... I knew it would be a tough match, and I was very focused on trying to be concentrated. I knew that if I'd manage to be concentrated and play my best chess, that my chances would not be inferior. And at the end anything could happen, so I was by no means inferior in this match.
I was by no means inferior in this match.
What exactly did you say about this, at the press conference after the tiebreak? Because I'm not sure the translation was accurate there.
In the rapid games I was dominating; I had the advantage in most of the games. Over the the whole match, well, my feeling I was at least slightly better. But of course the match was so even... He missed chances in game 3, I missed chances in game 9, et cetera. I think that... let's say, I had some pressure.
But indeed, the interpretor was not up to the task. Most of the times the translation had nothing to do with what I was saying and also the translation into Russian was also not what Vishy was saying exactly. I think it was the only drawback of the whole organization.
Did you and your team consider the first game a success?
Well, I got a certain advantage, and I was considering for long to play this ...Bd7 move, and I could force Vishy to play one or two more accurate moves. However, I miscalculated something. I really wanted to play on and when I didn't play ...Bd7 the position was really drawn. This was not bad, as I played this opening for the first time and he played a rare system which I was not very familiar with.
How much time does it take to pick up such an opening like the Grünfeld, and learn everything?
It takes quite a lot of time to get a feeling for the position, it's not only about learning the lines. You can learn the lines pretty quickly, but you need to get a feeling as well. Fortunately I had more than half a year to prepare so I spent this time on this. It's not like people think, that you press the button and that the computer tells you what are the best moves and you go and play them. On such a level it's different. You go much deeper than the theory says. You have to look for where your opponent may try to surprise you so you basically have to recheck all the theory of the opening, learn and then recheck everything.
Did you also play training games?
I played some but not as much as I wanted. In the end I didn't have enough time.
On to game 2; did you expect this Chebanenko/Semi-Slav from Vishy?
I thought it's possible but basically I didn't think it's so realistic because it's a normal opening but it's not so popular...
It wasn't considered to be a main line.
No, but of course you should consider everything; your opponent can play anything, you cannot get into his head. You don't use spies [laughs], you cannot know so you have to be ready for anything.
So most of the work you did on this Chebanenko stuff was done during the match?
Yes. Before, you just think: if he plays this, I'll play this in game 1, and you think of something for game 2 but of course you cannot prepare for four games against each opening.
In the third game you more or less escaped with a draw. Did this disturb your confidence?
No. Of course it's not nice that I didn't play this ...Nb6/...Rd5 which would equalize immediately, but before the match I knew that you cannot play the whole match without making a mistake. It's part of the game and you should be ready to through it. The fact that this mistake didn't cost me a point gave a better feeling. If you're not punished, and you escape, it's OK. Normally you're not going to make a lot of mistakes, so if one mistake goes unpunished, it's... how to say... you're "forgiven".
That "Caissa is on your side".
Yes, exactly.

It seems that in some of the games a draw was agreed while one of the players could have played on...
I wouldn't say so.
...well, for example Nakamura has said that he liked a number of positions in which a draw was agreed.
Let me think, let me go back, because I don't want to speak in general terms. In game 1, in the final position it makes no sense to play on. OK, if I find ...Bd7 it makes sense, but after I took this double rook ending is just a draw.
Yes, this is also what Nigel Short said.
In game 2 it's the same; he built a fortress and I cannot attack even one pawn. I can continue with some senseless moves, but there is nothing to play for. Game 3 was a perpetual...
What about the bishop versus knight ending in game 4, you could try this Rc6?
Yes, it's true, but he's simply waiting. Of course it was my idea to continue playing as long as I have chances, but here I didn't see any chance. He puts his knight on f5 and he protects everything, and he checks on d4. I didn't see how I could pose a single threat.
Game 5 was this Sveshnikov, which is obviously a dead draw in the final position. Then, game 6, this rook ending is also a dead draw. Game 9 is a fortress. OK, in game 10 I could play a move or two but if he simply waits, it's also a fortress.
Alexander Morozevich told me that Vishy's a2-a3 was not a very good move to offer a draw with.
Exacty, I thought the same but I realized this is also a total fortress. If White puts his rook on the a-file, his knight on b3, play g3, Kg2, Kf1, it's simply a fortress. Of course a3 is not the best move to offer a draw, there Black can at least pretend his better but there Kg2, Kf1 is a pretty solid solution.
In game 12, probably Vishy could play on, you should ask him. Of course it's a drawn position but taken into consideration that I was short on time, probably he could try a bit.
Vladimir Kramnik was much surprised that Vishy offered a draw there. Were you?
I was a bit surprised but basically I saw how I would make a draw. I had invested some time on the previous move and I planned the whole defensive concept so I was confident that I was not in trouble. But of course, you never know, if the opponent keeps on making moves, how you would answer. By it's quite simple. you just exchange the a-pawn, keep your rook active...
Related to this is what you said at some point: "We're not here to entertain the public. We don't have to play out the moves; commentators can explain that." During the match once more there was this big debate between two groups, one that is saying that chess is fine like this, and one that wants changes, e.g. the Sofia rule, the football score, et cetera. What is your opinion?
It's a very good question. I also think there are two groups of people, who see chess differently. I think chess is not for everybody. Chess is for people who want to make an intellectual effort, who have respect for the game, and we shouldn't make the game more simple so that more people would enjoy it. I think we have millions of people worldwide who enjoy chess games. Let's respect them and do the utmost for them. They follow, the respect the game, they respect the players.
I think chess is not for everybody. Chess is for people who want to make an intellectual effort, who have respect for the game, and we shouldn't make the game more simple so that more people would enjoy it.
But there are also a lot of people who think chess should be different. I read one comment, that chess was boring, that the Eurovision was much more interesting, that chess is dead. My message is: if you want to watch Eurovision, go watch Eurovision. If you want to see cheap shows on TV? Watch cheap shows on TV. But there are millions of people who enjoy the game of chess, so let them enjoy the game of chess.
It's like classical music and pop music. If you go to a concert of a great violin player or piano player, you don't tell him: "OK, but Lady Gaga is much more entertaining. We have millions watching Lady Gaga, and only thousands are watching you in this theater." I think these are different things.

Let's focus on the people who love chess. Let's go to the schools, and make sure the children will love chess. You have people who appreciate the game and people who love the game. If people are coming only to be entertained, I wouldn't mind if they would go and see Eurovision instead. These people don't respect the players, they undervalue the game, so I don't see why we should try to please them.
In Moscow the live commentary was excellent, so the best service was done to people who love chess. Journalists came from all over the world... If people can't make the intellectual effort, they will never appreciate chess. A game of chess by itself is a pretty complicated thing, and you cannot change it so that one can appreciate it without an intellectual effort. This is my point of view.
For [Silvio] Danailov chess in a museum is like a curse, while Toiletgate in a museum would be totally outrageous! For me, it's a blessing that chess is played in such a prestigous museum. Let's say, Lady Gaga would never be invited to play in the Tretyakov Gallery! We should have respect for our profession, and do everything for the people who love chess. I don't know how it was translated, but this was what I wanted to say with my comment.
Read the second part of this interview here

Category:

Eigenwille

Eigenwille


Der Eigenwille
Ist nicht billig.

Der Eigenwille
Geboren aus dem Leben

Macht das Leben
Teils nicht
Teils eben
Angenehm.

Dauer


Dauer

Ich liebe Dich
So heißt´s:
Für immer

Doch Du
Was sagst Du
Du meine
Liebe Du

Du bist schlauer:
Nichts ist von Dauer


©Reinhardt Fischer

Freitag, 8. Juni 2012

Was ist wichtig?! - Was zählt?!

Wo?
Wo wird einst des Wandermüden
Letzte Ruhestätte sein?
Unter Palmen in dem Süden?
Unter Linden an dem Rhein?
Werd ich wo in einer Wüste
Eingescharrt von fremder Hand?
Oder ruh ich an der Küste
Eines Meeres in dem Sand?
Immerhin! Mich wird umgeben
Gotteshimmel, dort wie hier,
Und als Totenlampen schweben
Nachts die Sterne über mir.
Heinrich (Harry) Heine

Was ist wichtig?! - Was zählt?!

Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012

Der Tag des Runterfallens

Ich nenne meinen heutigen Tag den Tag des Runterfallens.

Ein komischer Tag war dieser Tag heute allemal - vor allem wohl für meine (verehrten) Zuschauer.

Ich mache mich fertig zum Losgehen, der Schirm fällt runter, einer meiner Schuhe fällt runter. (Eine Sonnenbrille, die ich immer in meiner Laptop-Tasche bei mir führe, musste ich heute nicht extra unterwegs gegen meine Brille austauschen, eine von beiden (oder beide) wäre mir sonst auch noch heruntergefallen. Nicht auszudenken. Blind wie ein Maulwurf. Woher so schnell Ersatz beschaffen, demnächst geht´s doch in den Urlaub.)

Ich erreiche meine erste Station. Machen Sie es sich noch für eine Minute bequem. Ich mache mich bereit zum Setzen, Schirm fällt. Beim Bezahlen: Schirm fällt, Wechselgeld ebenso ("Sie haben wohl zuviel davon.").

Dann noch so Schnellhefter besorgen: Schirm und Portemonnaie - fallen.

Weiter, Handwasch-Seife am Stück bei Yves Rocher kaufen. Eine Kundenkarte mit den und den Vorteilen gefällig? Logisch, klar, gerne, darf ich das hier kurz ablegen während ich den Antrag ausfülle? Gerne. Zuerst der Schirm, dann die Tüte mit den Schnellheftern. Ich erkläre, das passiert mir heute ständig, ein komischer Tag ist das. Die Verkäuferin interessiert sich anscheinend nur für den Antrag und dafür, was sie mir sonst noch Gutes tun kann.

Dann geht´s noch zum Game Stop, von wegen Verstärkung (des eigenen Verhaltens) und so. Den Schirm habe ich bereits unterm Arm eingeklemmt, aber für den Abflug des Gutscheins samt Portemonnaie reicht diese prophylaktische Schonhaltung bei weitem nicht aus.

Ich komme nach Hause.

Soll ich Mal etwas schreiben übers Runterfallen? Oder, wozu? Der aus dem Keller mitgebrachte Kaffee fällt runter, das Paket Milch legt sich daneben. Erstmal hinsetzen, Nervennahrung - der Löffel von der Ice Age 4 Kinder Überraschung macht den Abflug...

Apropos Betreuungsgeld. Das gibt einen ordentlichen Umsatzschub im Bereich Multimedia, Alkoholika, Tabakwaren und solchen Luxusartikeln mehr - auf das die Kinder bildungsschwacher Eltern (auch weiterhin) schön hinten runterfallen.

Dienstag, 5. Juni 2012

Muttersohn (1)

[...] Der Wichtigste Mensch sammelt, was ihm vom Dichter geschickt wird. Er muss sich alles, was ihm geschrieben wird, gefallen lassen, weil es ihm bessergeht als dem Schreibenden. Verstehst du, Percy! Das ist seine Schuld, dass es ihm bessergeht. Das ist das, was der Dichter will, den Wichtigsten Menschen davon überzeugen, dass es ihm bessergehe als denen, die ihm schreiben. Das gelingt dem Dichter. [...]
(a.a.O., S.106)

Lit.:
Walser, M.: Muttersohn. Reinbek 2011.

Hermine sagt: Bitte sehr.

#1


#1

Gibt es einen Gott
Gibt es einen Ober-Motz

Ich weiß es nicht
Ich will es nicht


©Reinhardt Fischer

Freitag, 1. Juni 2012

widersprüchliches Leben


unvollendet

Leben beinhaltet
mit Widersprüchen zu leben;

Leben beinhaltet
mit Kampf zu leben;

Leben beinhaltet
mit Überlebenskampf zu leben;

Leben meint
mit Lieben zu leben;

Leben meint
mit Geliebtwerden zu leben.

Leben bedeutet
unvollendet sein...


©Reinhardt Fischer

Ich habe keine Angst mehr vor dem Tod - kann ich nicht sagen

Porträt: „Ich habe keine Angst mehr vor dem Tod“: (kann ich partout nicht sagen; Anm. v. Reinhardt Fischer)  Friedegard Ziegler kommt zu Menschen nach Hause, denen nicht mehr viel Zeit bleibt. Sie hilft ihnen, den Alltag in Todesnähe zu bewältigen

Bei Friedegard Ziegler kommt der Tod mit Milka-Herzen. Dass es nicht mehr lange geht, dass es nur noch Tage dauert, merkt sie, wenn der Patient nicht mehr schlucken kann. Warum auch? Wer stirbt, braucht kein Essen mehr, am Ende nicht mal mehr Wasser – weshalb das Letzte, was ein Sterbender von dieser Welt hat, in vielen Fällen ein trockener Mund ist. Verhindern kann man das mit Milka-Herzen. Nicht mit der Schokolade, sondern mit den Schablonen, in welche sie eingefasst ist: In ihnen kann man Wasser einfrieren, Wein oder Bier, und später damit die Lippen des Sterbenden benetzen. Bevor es losgeht, rät Ziegler deshalb den Angehörigen, eine Schachtel zu besorgen. „Es geht nicht darum, F...

weiterlesen... von mir dringend empfohlen

Blog-Archiv

Labels

Abgrenzung Achtsamkeit Adam Adele Akzeptanz Albert Einstein Alexander Grischuk Alexander Morozevich Allergie Alltag Analyse Anatoli Karpov Angst Anish Giri Anton Zeilinger Apotheker Arkadij Naiditsch Ärzte Atomkraft Ausdauertraining Aussitzen Autos Bali Banken Bauern Baustellen Beamte Bequemlichkeit Bernard Jakoby Beziehung Bibliothek Big Bang Theory Bild Bildung Bill Bryson BING Bio Biographie Blog Bloggen Blogger punkt com Blu-ray Blues Bobby Fischer Bon Jovi Boris Gelfand Börse Bruce Springsteen Buch Bücher Buddenbrooks Bundeskartellamt Bundespräsident Bundestagspräsident Burnout-Syndrom Büro CD CDU Chaos Chess chinesisches Horoskop Chrome Comed Computer Cowboy Credo Csaba Balogh Darmspiegelung David Howell Demokratie Demut Depression Die Fantastischen Vier Die Grünen DIE LINKE Dieter Hildebrandt Diphtherie Doors Doppelmoral DVD E-Mail Ehrensold Einbürgerung Einstellung Einstellungsänderung Elo-Liste Emanzipation Emerson Lake and Palmer Endspiel Entertainment Entspannung Eric Clapton Erich Kästner Erkenntnis Erkenntnisse Eröffnung Erziehungssti Essen Evernote Evolution Ex-Frau Existenz Fabiano Caruana Facebook Familie Faschismus Fernsehen FIDE Film Firefox Fitness Formel-Eins Fortbildung Fotografie Fragen Frank Sinatra Frauen Freddie King Freedom Tower Freiheit Freizeitgestaltung Fußball G-Star Raw Garri Kasparov Gata Kamsky Gauck Gedanken Gedicht Gefühle genial Geniessen Georg Hensel Gerechtigkeit Geschichte Gesellschaft Gesundheit Gesundheitswesen Gewalt Glaube Glenn Gould Glück Golo Mann Google Gott Günter de Bruyn Günter Kunert Halbwertszeit Hanns Dieter Hüsch Heinrich Heine Heinz Rudolf Kunze Hektik Henry Miller Hepatitis Herausforderung Hermann Hesse Hikaru Nakamura Hirnwichserei Hollywood Hongkong Hör´ mal wer da hämmert Horror Hotmail Humor Ian Nepomniachtchi ICD 10 Identica Ideologie IFTTT Impfung Indonesien Innenministerium Inspiration Thematik Tod und Sterben Instagram Instapaper Internet Intro Intro zum Blog Intro zur Thematik Tod und Sterben iPod Irmgard Niestroj Istanbul Jahresziel James Corden Jameson Jan Timman Jazz Jim Morrison John DM Nunn John Updike Johnnie Walker Jostein Gaarder Journalismus Journalisten Film Judit Polgar Julia Ketterer Kapitalismus Katze Kerstin Decker Kirche Kommunikation Krebs Kriminalität kritisches Lebensereignis Kultur Lachen Läufer und Bauern gegen Bauern Leben Lebenselixier Lebenshilfe Lebensmittel Leninismus Lesen Lesezeichen Lev Polugaevsky Levon Aronian Liebe Literatur Liv Tyler Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu Loslassen LP Luke McShane Luxus Lyrik Macht Magnus Carlsen Malcolm mittendrin Marcel Proust Mark Knopfler Martin Huber Martin Walser Marxismus Mattangriff Medien Medizin mein persönliches Schutzpatent Meine Wortfolgen Melancholie Menschheit Menschlichkeit Merksatz Metallica Michael Adams Microsoft Miscellaneous Mittelspiel mob Morphogenetische Felder MP3 Musik Mutter-Kind Mutter-Kind Erziehungsstil Myspace Nachrichten Nähe-Distanz Nahtoderfahrung Nationalsozialismus Natur Naturwissenschaften Neuentdeckung New York News Next-Generation Niels Bohr Nigel Short Ohne Kommentar Older Generation One World Trade Center Organspende Otis Rush Paco Vallejo Panne Parteiräson Paul Watzlawick Peter Leko Philosophie Photovoltaik Physik Politik Politiker Polyomyelitis Power-Boxing Prominenz Psychologie RAF Raimund Fellinger Rätsel Ray Robson ReadItLater Rechtsextremismus Reiner Ruffing Religion Resilienz Resilienz-Forschung Richard Feynman Ritual Robert James Fischer Rüdiger Safranski Sarah Kirsch Satire Schach Schachaufgabe Schnellschach Schreiben Schule Schutzengel Schweinegrippe Schweiss Schwester Scrubs - Die Anfänger Seinfeld Sekte Selbstentfremdung Selbstorganisation Selbstverteidigung Sentenzen Sergey Karjakin Siegeswille Siegfried Unseld Simultan Sinn Sitcoms Social Bookmarking spass SPD Spenden Spiele-Konsole Spielerporträt Sport Springpad Status Stephen Hawking Stephen King Sterbeprozess Steuern Stimmung Stolz Streit StumbleUpon Suggestion Suizid Sünde Svenja Systemisches Teimour Radjabov Temperament Terry Pratchett Tetanus Themes Thomas Bernhard Thomas Mann Tibet Tod und Sterben Tod und Sterben Tradition Trauer Trauerarbeit Traum Trennung Trinken Trivialität Tumblr Turnier Twitter Two and a Half Men Überlebenskünstler Udo Lindenberg Ulrike Herrmann Umwelt Umweltbewusstsein Umzug Unheilig unprätentiös Unwahrheit Urheberrecht Urlaub US-Meisterschaften USA Vasik Rajlich Vassily Ivanchuk Veränderung Verdrängung Vergangenheit Verlust Vermögenssteuer Vertrauen Veselin Topalov Video Vietnam Viktor Bologan Viswanathan Anand Vorahnung Vorgehensweise im Blog Vorgehensweise Thematik Erkenntnisse Vorgehensweise Thematik Tod und Sterben Walter Kempowski Web 2.0 weihnachten Wellenkonstrukt Weltmeisterschaft Wendekreis des Krebses Werbung Werte Wetter Whiskey Whisky Wing Tsun Wirtschaft Wissenschaft Wladimir Kramnik Wolf Schneider WordPress punkt com Worte Wulff Wut Yoono Yuri Razuvaev Zeit Zeitgeist Zen Zitat Zivilcourage Zucker Zufall Zweifel Zynismus