Dennis M's Chess Site

This is a blog for chess fans by a chess fan. I enjoy winning as much as anyone else, and I've had a reasonable amount of success as a competitor, but what keeps me coming back to the game is its beauty. And that, primarily, is what this site will be about! All material copyrighted.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005


It's nice to receive compliments on my blogging, especially from a writer who has himself set the bar pretty high. Even so, the thought of having my work compared to an enchilada, tasty or otherwise, is not one that would have occurred to me - but read for yourselves.

While I'm at it, thanks also to Harbinger (sleep? What's that?) and to local chess enthusiast and higher ed. blogger Ken Smith (not that Ken Smith, of course) for their kind words.

We now return to our regularly scheduled, non-self-congratulatory programming.


  • At 9:36 PM, Blogger Bill Vallicella said…


    I was trying to find a clever way to avoid writing: see here. Besides, Mexican food is big in these parts, more so than in South Bend I would imagine. Come on down for the U.S. Open and I'll buy you some.

    I've often wondered what strong players like you think of Ken Smith attaching his name to the Morra gambit. I've read his books -- what do you think of his analysis? I met and talked with Smith a while once in the food court of the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas. Nice guy, but enormously overweight.

  • At 5:55 PM, Blogger Dennis Monokroussos said…

    No doubt it was a bit of self-promotion, but I think he earned it: he played the gambit all the time, even in the super-strong San Antonio 1972 event. He wrote numerous pamphlets and articles defending it over a long period of time, so in the absence of the gambit's being anything like a fixture before his work and its current prominence as a mainstay of amateur chess, I have no problem with his appending his name to the gambit.

    As for his analysis, it was typically optimistic but generally reasonable given his strength and the pre-computer age in which it was done. He was on friendly terms with stronger players, like GM Larry Evans, who probably kept his evaluation of the gambit more in check than it would otherwise be.

    It has been an awfully long time since I've actually looked at his pamphlets though, so I can't really vouch for specifics. I'm sure that everything he had to say about the important lines is passe, but as that's true of any 15-20 year old theory book, that's hardly a criticism of his work.


Post a Comment

<< Home