The proof of the pudding - as we all know (one more saying!) - is in the eating. We are all different:
some of us are ready for experimenting, even for bluffing or taking chances, whereas others prefer to avoid risk in a cautious, comfort-loving way. Obviously, those who don't step aside when challenged by something new belong to the former group. People like this don't hesitate to take the trouble to try as many times as necessary. They are led by healthy curiosity, as well as by the hope of finding the right path, the right move, the right plan. Like any other categorisation, it's somewhat arbitrary if I say that representatives of the cautious attitude try to adapt to the existing state of affairs, whereas researchers, inventors and travellers strive for the reform of what we have. They are not afraid of expressing their doubts concerning teachings accepted as axioms or dogmas. This kind of behaviour was and still is considered heretical in all ages, only in different forms. Nowadays, an innovator has (hopefully) no reason to be afraid of physical damage, but he can still acquire enemies filling a whole town if he assigns to a certain company the sole rights to utilise his invention. Besides, it can take a whole lifetime to have an invention, developed through thousands of experiments (Edison: 'My 1000'11
experiment was successful... '), officially recognised and actually utilised. Likewise, anyone can have an idea that never 'surfaces' in a tournament game. I still have shots here and there from the time of my active career myself, although my one-time protege Peter Lek6 used quite a few of them. In a game you can find elsewhere in this book (Dreev Adorjan, 1994), I unleashed a decisive improvement after 1 8(!!) years. So why are people afraid of new things? Let me ignore the political, religious or business reasons for the moment, and quote my own personal example. As a human being, I have my own fears and anxieties in life, however ardently I have always searched for novel and exceptional things in chess. Take the computer, for one. In my age group (I was born in 1 950) those who have mastered it at more than just the average user level are exceptions to the rule. Now look at all those little kids ... ! My first computer set was in boxes for half a year. When I was moving about in the room, I went around it in a big semi-circle. Then our relationship improved some
what, but I'll never be a computer wiz. You will quite rightly laugh your head off if I confess that I actually said 'Hello, friend' to the thing before switching it on for quite some time. Yes, I know, I've always known that it is irrational, to
The Proof of the Pudding and the Practical Benefits 155 daughters took home a stray dog the size of a calf. She (baptised Lady by little Anna however controversial was this name of her origin ... ) inexplicable inhibitions, fears or anxieties, or at least a whole lot of weird automatic responses, are either extremely lucky or lying experiences. In chess, beginners -typically children - are taught by people who don't know a whole lot more than their pupils. My brother, 6 years my senior, taught me how the pieces move when I was 8.
Then he beat me constantly, and I cried a lot. But! Later I was given a book for beginners, which I studied carefully (I don't remember exactly, but it may have been done in secret!). Things changed completely. It mattered the world that I learnt some elementary principles of the game (develop
ment, centre, safety of the king etc.).
Naturally, there was nothing innovative about it, as you have to teach a beginner, especially a child, 'dogmatically' at first. Otherwise he will just get confused. When the time comes, you can - and you must
- show him the unusually beautiful exceptions.
Unfortunately, dogmas for beginners include the thesis that it is better to play with White because you can win more easily. Th�·
dogma is, however, never modified later, and an incredible majority of players believe in White as a result.
They build up an ambitious White repertoire, and presume that their opponents are frightened of BLACK games just like themselves. And it is generally true! White is confident, because he is White. And BLACK, who got the same education, also 'knows' it is better to play with White. But he plays BLACK this time and his state of mind is close to schizoid. Suppose the 'right' result is born. The guy with White is happy, he won, improved his chances for whatever, and of course this point confirms his belief. The victim is naturally sad. On the other hand he would never blame himself, but the 'wrong' colour for the accident. And he can hardly wait to play with the White chessmen next round! All this is funny, but rather shamefully primitive. So much to paint this grotesque situation.
Tournament statistics are influenced by this trend, giving the 'colour superstition' further support. It has been certainly going on for a few centuries, and it may also hold for the millennia when chess was played with the original ancient rules. It will be all the more shocking when the BLACK IS OK!
theory will be officially tested some time in the future. There will be tens of thousands of 'test' games featuring the counterplay-centred opening weapons of well-prepared, unbiased second players. What a
156 The Proof of the Pudding and the Practical Benefits
pity I will be by all odds in a pulverised state by that time ...
CONFIDENTIAL!
seek a partner for a rather morbid, but fruitful business. The thing is that after my death you can bum my body and put my noble dust into little-little sacks. Then sell it! If you run out of the original 'raw material' never mind! There is dust, sand and all that is needed everywhere by the tons. We all were made of dust, so it's all the same.
Besides they usually mix up the 'original' ash already at the crematorium. The main thing: don't let anybody down! There is a danger that those tens of thousands who bought ' from me' organise a meeting, and a little sack is going to be a kind of entry card. They may start talking about cheating and things like that. Don't lose your temper! Just ask them: So you want to say he was not a Giant? If anybody's interested contact me please! Don't forget: discretion is needed! ! 50-50%.